The work is well presented, but I was more interested in the politics behind the work since it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the gallery texts aside from vague references to elitism and how certain ideas couldn't be realized because of the 'social implications'. The blurb at the entrance to the gallery reads: '...he joined the cultural elite of his era...broadened his horizons and presented unprecented opportunities to experiment'. But nowhere is it mentioned that Corbusier was implicated in two fascist governments. Incidentally, Corbusier and company were instrumental in bringing to life, those towering urban slums you find in most cities, the same ones synonymous with crime and social exclusion. In fact, his urban planning theories read like Milton Friedman's deregulated economic theories. Perhaps they look idealistic in theory, but are dangerous in practice and by no accident very favourable to elitism. On paper Corbusier's ideas may look pretty, but when put into practice they become something sinister. Here at the retrospective such details are casually overlooked.

The designs immediately came across as exclusive. I guessed Corbusier was a Swiss aristocrat, but no, only Swiss. So where did all the money come from to build these fantastical structures? because surely moving to Paris and imitating Picasso isn't worthy of a legacy? Between the world wars Corbusier strove to put his theories into practice. He aligned himself with the most prominent money-source of the time: government. Bear in mind this was before big business dominated government. It was the 1930s and the corporate power-base hadn't quite yet been consolidated. Industry was indeed churning and the landscape was changing, cities were growing. Think of New York, Paris, London. A wave of disgruntled immigrants seeking refuge from the consequences of Western Imperialism abroad were of concern to the government. So Corbusier knew all about rubbing the appropriate shoulders and his ideas were advocated and sponsored by, among others, Benito Mussolini and the Vichy leader Philipe Petain.


Typically of the Barbican, the exhibition is neatly marketed if nothing else. Corbusier paintings, blueprints, leather-bound books, furniture, lamps, tapestries, video installations and photography. Each phase of Corbusier's designs and ideas presented with the consistency of an effective brand, everything laid out like in a Swiss Boutique. A luxurious Corbusian lifestyle is clearly the product. In light of the show being a retrospective, the examination of Corbusier's politics and ideas leaves a lot to be desired. I found myself wondering 'who is this man who has been so instrumental in shaping our environment?' According to the Barbican it doesn't matter because look at the pretty art. True enough, the work is attractive and familiar, but surely art has a further purpose than just looking pretty? The bourgeois idea of art for art's sake it what led me to assume an aristocratic background. Is it dubious for a gallery to completely detach the politics of the artist from the art? Here at Art of architecture you'll find no criticism of Corbusier's work at all. He is undoubtedley splendid in every way, according to any literature you might find. But reducing it to nothing but eye-candy for spectators and a tidy investment for wealthy owners and collectors does seem more like the aim here. You go through, you're seduced, you purchase at the end. But what do you learn? I asked a lady who'd come to see the exhibition. 'No, no, you have to take his creativity at face value. He can't be held responsible for the state of public housing, that was not his vision or intention...'
Hmm. Just a coincidence then that after collaborating with Mussolini he worked two years under Petain's Vichy government who welcomed Hitler and did away with the values of the old republic; liberty, fraternity and equality, in favour of Work, Family and Fatherland. Corbusier's task, regardless of his intention, was to sort out the slum crisis in Paris and Algiers.
Clearly, Corbusier is the most influential architect of his time, but surely the very calculated political approach to his so-called art and its very real consequences are far more important than anything else.

Regardless, the exhibition marches on and it sure does draw them in. With most vistors you get the impression they’ve probably never been within 20 miles of any urban high-rise residency, urban high rises, ironically, being the core of Corbusier's renown. So there we have it. If your ideas are favourable to authoritarian society you can appease its leaders and build a city in the image of your imagination no matter the bigger picture. Because after all it’s only art. Why not clear the bigger picture of unsightly poor people? That'll get you funding. You can stack those with no money on top of those with any objection and be praised for it. Along with other contributions you make to buildings commissioned by the very same wealthy institutions that maintain social strata, you can reap the benefits of comfort and luxury and help enforce the rules. In the end, history is only written by those who conveniently do not recall how others were marginalized and appropriated. I find myself asking if all the thousands of visitors to the Barbican gallery are aware of the politics and consequences of what they're so enthusiastic about. And if Corbusier is not responsible for the consequences of the politics he pursued then perhaps those exhibiting a retrospective should be.