—Fluctuations and Generations Interwoven by Texts and Images—

An Abbreviated Edition

by Michio Kato

“The bull sign appeared in my 60s. At this age, life may tend to wither, but, when you get older still, yet, what if you energize your heart, head and stomach? (Omitted) In full of freshness, I have arrived at this brightening and enliven age, and finally comes the spring at the end of life… A good explanation of the reason for living.”

The Compositional Organization of the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’):
The ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’) begins with its title in the inside cover plate, then 3 two-page spread plates are inserted, and continues to the set of 17 plates of prints and texts. To the left of the 17 text plates, the tabs with corresponding plate number are attached and folded in such a way to sandwich the print plates. Then, a-two-page spread text plate and the publication information are added.

Additionally, on the left side of the third 3 two-page spread plate mentioned above, and on the reverse side of text plate 17, there depicted are two figures (drawings) representing the main theme of this print collection, ‘Deux (or Two).’ While the former figure renders non-intersecting parallel lines over a stone, the latter figure renders sketches of Parthenon and its inverted pediment over a building, together, both symbolize the notion of ‘Deux (or Two).’

The Memoir of Le Corbusier, the Painter:
In retrospect, after establishing his position as a plastic artist, Le Corbusier had summarized his activities every ten years. As Le Corbusier was born in 1887, and when he reached his 50s in 1937, he prepared a full-scale exhibition of his paintings including the exhibits of paintings he was stocking since 1928. Subsequently the following year, in 1938, Le Corbusier held his art exhibitions including the works of architecture and paintings in Paris and Zurich. As being a Swiss-born person, for Le Corbusier, it also signified as his triumphal return home exhibition.
Entering his 60s in 1947, Le Corbusier wrote an article/essay, ‘New Worlds of Space,’ that summarized and synthesized his up-to-date creative activities in architecture and painting works. The article/essay was published in 1948. Furthermore, Le Corbusier produced, between 1947 and 1953, his ‘Le Poemé de l’Angle Droit’ (‘The Poem of the Right Angle’), which was published in 1955. It consists of a series of 19 paintings in color lithographs and corresponding writings of poetries with illustrations by Le Corbusier. This collection of paintings and poems is arranged in 7 chapters, i.e., in categories of Milieu (Environment), Esprit (Spirit), Chair (Flesh), Fusion, Character, Offre (Offering/Open hand) and Outil (Tool) respectively. Accordingly, the work of ‘Le Poemé de l’Angle Droit’ (‘The Poem of the Right Angle’) is widely considered to be Le Corbusier’s one of the most culminating comprehensive syntheses of his view of the world and that of art.
Then, as he became at the age of 70, Le Corbusier conceived of his ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’). It is an autobiography in self-retrospect of Le Corbusier as painter seen through his prints, in which the life of Le Corbusier is recollected in the poems and prints.

The various images that recur in the texts and prints in the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’), are those dating from 1929, a disassembled and unfolded match box, overlapping and deformed bottles, and glasses, as well as pebble stones and barks added to the motifs of oil paintings also in the same period which were referred to as the objects that evoked poetic impressions, and as if to follow suit, the revived images of women that were removed from inhibition and exclusion in the Purism period. Moreover, the recurring images also extended to include those images of a handshake that symbolizes the union of two people via empty gloves, the post-WWII images of a bull, ‘Ubu’ and ‘Open Hands.’
Most especially, the images after the World War II were created with specific silhouettes, and thereafter, repeatedly appeared in his paintings. Likewise, those not-to-overlook would be the images of horizon illustrated in the print plates 2, 5, 9 and 12 respectively. And indeed, it is, what Le Corbusier perceived to be a symbol of geometric order, the Acropolis or the Parthenon, which he discerned as the supreme specimen of architecture when he had first encountered during his developmental stage.
How come the works of painting he created prior to 1928 were not included? Looking back and reviewing as a painter, Le Corbusier or Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris (his real name), in 1918, he met Amédée Ozenfant whom Auguste Perret had introduced to him, and collaborated with Amédée Ozenfant to publish ‘Après le Cubisme (After Cubism)’ in declaring the tenets of Purism. Then, they held the first two-person Purism exhibition at the Galerie Thomas in Paris. And in 1921, they held the second two-person Purism exhibition at the Galerie Druet in Paris. After exhibiting at the Le Salon des indépendants in 1922 and 1923, subsequent to exhibiting at the large scale exhibition held at Galerie de I’Effort moderne in 1923, he refrained from exhibiting for some time.
And from circa 1928 and onward, he (Jeanneret) began signing his paintings with ‘Le Corbusier.’ However, as of 1928, there are exceptions as some of the works such as ‘La dame au chat et à la thèière (The Lady with the Cat and the Teapot)’ (FLC 85) and few others, on which he still signed with ‘Jeanneret.’ It was from 1929, he signed all his paintings with ‘Le Corbusier. In other words, the series of works recollected in the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’) bespoke the beginning of Le Corbusier the painter and his works who completely departed from the principles of Purism.

The Interwoven Relationship between Text Plates and Print Plates: To Counterpoint
Looking once more at the compositional organization of the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’), it seems that the plurality of ‘a certain association (between the two)’ conveyed to the collection title denotes one of the intents of compositional organization of this collection of paintings and poems. This is because the text plates and print plates are interwoven and associated in multiple ways to compose the whole.
In most cases, the text and print are associated with the text on the reverse side of the preceding plate. For example, the text appearing on the reverse side of the thematic illustrations on a bi-fold two-page spread describes the following print plate 1. So it continues to the description of the print plate 1 appearing on the text plate 1 front side. By the same token, the reverse side of the text plate 1 describes the print shown in the succeeding print plate 2 which, then leads to the description on the text plate 2 front side. In this case, the reader would first read the text with the previous number, then moving on to read the next text over and across the print plate with the next number. That is to say, the reader would be forced to experience the work by going back and forth between texts and prints.
In other cases, the relationship between the text plate and the print plate is more complicated. For instance, the 2 texts, “a head is detached” appearing on the reverse side of the text plate 3 and “… is placed in the hollow perfectly” appearing on the front side of the text plate 4 are linked and combined into one text to describe the print plates 4 and 5. Thus it antecedently describes the progression (from the print plate 3) up to the succeeding print plate 5.
In addition, a series of text plates starting from the text plate 14 reverse side to the text plate 15 front side and reverse side also forms one combined description in progression to depict the emergence process of the bull, Open Hand and Ubu. Furthermore, the print plates 15 and 16 form, once again, to make up a combined description in progression to convey the emergence of those mentioned above. In this case, however, there is no longer the text description to explain the print plate 16 on the text plate 16 front side where it is supposed to be, and instead, there is only a blue amorphous figure. In these instances, the reader is inevitably obligated to go back and forth between text plates and print plates in more complicated ways.
This method or technique of embedding subtle variances and deviations in progression of print plates and text plates can be construed as having some relation to what Le Corbusier termed as ‘counterpoint’ in architectural design of placing overlapping multiple of layers.

Discretely Dispersed Chain Interwoven by Graphic/Pictorial Images:
If we focus on the relationship of graphic/pictorial images depicted in the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’), the images are associated with other images seemingly in an indiscriminate order, and the images create a discretely dispersed chain of network rather than a linear chain specific to the accompanying text.
For example, the ‘bull mark or symbol’ drawn on the preface plate 1 at the top not only appears at the beginning text but also appears on the print plates 13 and 15 as the main theme prints, as well as it is repeated on the reverse side of the text plate 17 entitled “the Outcome of the Meander.” Moreover, the hand drawing starting from the empty gloves on the print plate 6 is chain-linked to the ‘Open Hand’ drawn on the print plate 16 via the images of handshake depicted on the print plates 11 and 12.
Likewise, the image of non-intersecting parallel lines over a stone mentioned at the head can be associated with the graphic/pictorial images entitled “the Outcome of the Meander,” depicted on the text plate 17, then, it ultimately becomes a foreshadowing reference to the concluding line, “It is necessary to be two…” written at the end of the collection.
It seems that this network of images was used intentionally for the first time in his ‘Le Poemé de l’Angle Droit’ (‘The Poem of the Right Angle’) which was produced when Le Corbusier reached his 60s. There, the entire compositional organization and logical structure were systemized according to the rigorous organization called ‘iconostase (iconostasis).’ Nevertheless, there is no compositional organization like ‘iconostase (iconostasis)’ in the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’). Rather, it may be construed that the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’) is consorted by the unexpected associations generated from the variety of images.

Manifold ‘Two’ and ‘Two Parties’ that Are Associated by Print Plates:
If one focuses upon the notion of time inherent in the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’), by way of a recurring to the past works, it encompasses the plurality of time that denotes the past, present and future.
If one observes further from a perspective of duality or bipartite, in addition to the conflict between the dream and consciousness seen in the figure and the statement “Je rêvais (I dreamt)” on the print and text plates 10, there embedded is another conflict between Europe and Asia. Likewise, there is a conflict seen in terms of the ‘Between-Two’ in the print and the painting on which the print was based. To cite one example here, it may be surmised that the illustrated image of the print plate 6 is based upon the painting dated 1929 and entitled ‘Verre et bouteilles sur un nappe,’ (FLC 213). This painting was an extension of the still painting ‘Le Dé violet ou Bouteille rose’ (FLC 330). There, what in Purism terms called the ‘objet-type’ the mechanically standardized and mass-produced bottles and glasses were deformed (in the prints) to assimilate in such a way to assume a bottle resembling a common murre, thus the paired ‘bottle—common murre,’ and a glass resembling a mask, thus the paired ‘glass—mask’ were depicted on the print.
Here, the ‘objet-type,’ symbolizing a notion of singular conception pursued by Purism was converted to a notion of dual or dyad conception, thus transitioning from ‘One’ to ‘Two.’

Conclusion: From the Pursuit of Singular Conception to the Notion of Coexistence and Generation Principle:
Lastly, let us examine the circled image drawn on the reverse side of text plate 17 entitled “the Outcome of the Meander.” It begins as follows:

No　←　□ →　Yes

Below ‘No’ on left, there is an illustration of what seems to be the Parthenon, and to its right is a diagram of what resembles to be the Chandigarh’s Palace of Justice (High Court) with the upside down gable (or pediment) and the date, 1957 which is the year Le Corbusier visited India for the first time. On the lower left is a diagram of Chandigarh’s Governor’s Palace with 52 indicating the year is written. And to its right, above and below the written, ‘the Sign of the Bull,’ are two symbolic signs of Indian born bull.
The image of this plate begins with the Parthenon on the ‘No’ or negation side, and then by going through the process of denials and affirmations repeatedly, and also prompted by his encounter with India, seemingly, Le Corbusier recapitulated the transformations in his life that finally lead him to the notion of “the Outcome of the Meander.” That is to say, it was an expression of a new view of the world that Le Corbusier had reached through his contact with India and its different culture. As if to support his transformations, Le Corbusier stated in India, “There is no longer necessary to visit the Acropolis for everything is here (Sarkhej Roza, a mosque and tomb complex near Ahmedabad, India).”
In retrospect, Le Corbusier had always recognized and regarded the Parthenon as the one and only supreme universal entity ever since his first encounter with it in his ‘Voyage to the Orient’ in 1911, and it had been the goal for him to pursue during the 1920s. Therefore, the liberation in India from his adhesion to the (notion of) Parthenon also marked the transition of his statue by departing from his self-portrayal of ‘being an architect pursuing the unified and universal approach toward modern architecture.’
Through the period of Purism in his 30s, Le Corbusier or Jeanneret (his real name) had advocated innovative modernization in various arts while denied the exerted academism or the preconceived values on which the establishment represented by such as the École des Beaux-Arts rested. That was not all. While Le Corbusier even went so far as to renounce such former master teachers as Charles L’ Éplatternier and Auguste Perret with whom he once shared the same aspirations, and continued his self-dilation. There, it could be read and discerned that Le Corbusier had been performing a thorough self-integration in the form of absorbing of others.
Consequently, with a self-integration of others or a disavowal of dialectic sublation of opposing two parties, and however compassionate (others directing for self-integrations) or unsympathetic (others in opposition), here, it seems that there is a need for maintaining relationships with others without deleting others. It may be discerned that while there is confrontation with others but there is no integration by exclusion or absorption. Rather, opposing others continued to be required in order to avoid integration.
Instead of pursuing the only universality represented by the Parthenon, Le Corbusier dared to keep himself in the midst of the two, which was the state (of mind) he was able to gain from going through his own hands-on experience. This in turn derived his promotion of self-reform, wherefore it could also become a factor in many forms of generation. The conversion, from the state of singular uniformity depicted at the end of the ‘Entre-Deux’ (‘Between-Two’) puts forward an authentic model of symbiosis we are now obligated to learn toward the closure of modern era,