James Stirling
Pritzker Architecture Prize Laureate
1981
Contents of this page:
...About James Stirling,
a brief biography
Photo
Gallery
Citation from the Pritzker
Jury
Acceptance Speech by
James Stirling
Prizes in Architecture
address by
Cesar Pelli, architect and Pritzker Juror
Go back to
List of Laureates page.
...about James Stirling
1981 Pritzker Laureate
James Stirling, 1926-1992, of Great Britain was one of that country's best-known
architects particularly since his 1963 project at Leicester University,
the engineering building. Born in Glasgow, Scotland, he took his architecture
degree at Liverpool University, but set up his practice in London.
In addition to the Leicester project already mentioned, his other major
works at the time he was awarded the Pritzker Prize included a training
center for Olivetti in Hasselemere; a History Building for Cambridge University;
an expansion of Rice University in Texas, and numerous low cost housing
projects, and residences. Since 1981, he has completed a major social sciences
center in Berlin; a Performing Arts Center for Cornell University; and
such major museum projects as the Clore Gallery expansion for the Tate
Gallery in London; the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, an addition to Harvard's
Fogg Museum; and the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart, Germany.
In an article written in 1979 for Contemporary Architects, Stirling
said, "I believe that the shapes of a building should indicate—perhaps
display—the usage and way of life of its occupants, and it is therefore
likely to be rich and varied in appearance, and its expression is unlikely
to be simple...in a building we did at Oxford some years ago, it was intended
that you could recognize the historic elements of courtyard, entrance gate
towers, cloisters; also a central object replacing the traditional fountain
or statue of the college founder. In this way we hoped that students and
public would not be disassociated from their cultural past. The particular
way in which functional-symbolic elements are put together may be the "art"
in the architecture."
..."If the expression of functional-symbolic forms and familiar elements
is foremost, the expression of structure will be secondary, and if structure
shows, it is not in my opinion, the engineering which counts, but the way
in which the building is put together that is important."
Udo Kulterman, writing in the same publication, said "Stirling's concept
of contemporary architecture is concerned with the humanization of the
environment. Humanistic considerations dominate all technological, economic
and aesthetic preconceived ideas and ideologies. Architecture has to re-establish
its own criteria for evaluation; for Stirling this obviously means creating
in harmony with common sense, tradition, the existing environment, and
a concern for people."
Citation from the Pritzker
Jury
We honor James Stirling—a prodigy for so many years—as a leader of the
great transition from the Modern Movement to the architecture of the New—an
architecture that once more has recognized historical roots, once more
has close connections with the buildings surrounding it, once more can
be called a new tradition.
Originality within this tradition is Stirling's distinction: in the old
"modern times," 45 degree angles in plan and section; today, startling
juxtapositions and transpositions of clearly classical and 19th century
references.
In three countries—England, Germany, and the United States—he is influencing
the development of architecture through the quality of his work.
James Stirling's Acceptance
Speech
One of the continuities in the history of Architecture is that every now
and again a new patron and benefactor appears, and on behalf of my profession,
here and abroad, I would saluteJayPritzker—a most generous friend to Architects.
Somehow I think it might have been easier for Philip Johnson who, on the
first occasion of the Prize giving, talked about the importance of the
new Prize to the Profession, and maybe easier for Luis Barragan, reviewing
a lifetime's work. Perhaps it's more difficult for me—at any rate I feel
it that way. I can't talk about the Prize as a new event and I hope I'm
not at the end of my work, though I guess I'm somewhere past the midway.
It's always been difficult for me to see myself. I work very intuitively,
I'm not even sure whether I'm an English Architect, a European or an International
Architect. It is embarrassing to talk about myself and therefore I will
quote from a recent article written by Robert Maxwell especially about
this 3rd Pritzker award. Maxwell was a fellow student at Liverpool School
of Architecture in the 1940's and is now Professor of Architecture at London
University:
"In England in particular there is a peculiar breath of scandal attaching
to the pursuit of architecture as Art. Criticism of architecture in the
public mind is broadly associated with sociological or material failure,
and these spectres haunt the practice of architecture. Yet when such faults
occur they are not thought to be really scandalous except when associated
with high architectural aspirations."
The `high architectural aspirations' achieved in some of our earlier projects
were in a sense accidents —the clients were not necessarily expecting a
work of art in addition to a well functioning building—but they got buildings
which have ever since been overrun with hordes of architectural students
pounding through, something the users didn't anticipate or now appreciate.
However, for me, right from the beginning the `art' of architecture has
always been the priority. That's what I trained to do (and incidentally
its what students are still trained to do), so it's particularly gratifying
to feel that the Pritzker Prize is being awarded anually to Architects
who value the art as highest and who have at the same time achieved a consistent
sequence of buildings.
I agree with Maxwell that by and large the UK situation is to rate artistic
content as coming rather far down the line of priorities (or as something
which, with a bit of luck, might just happen) . So how do fine buildings
get built in the UK? Often subversively, I suspect. Certainly in my earlier
days it was never discussed that the buildings should also be beautiful.
However, I'm pleased to say that this situation has changed and our Patrons
in Germany and America and our single client in the UK have commissioned
us because they particularly value high quality architecture.
Historically, the quality of the art in the architecture, both at time
of building and in retrospect, is remembered as the significant
element. However, with the advent of modern architecture in this century,
sociological, functional and real estate values.
Prizes in Architecture
by
Cesar Pelli, architect and Pritzker Juror
address at the Presentation ceremony
The art of architecture is possible only through the understanding of the
limitations and possibilities of building. A prize in architecture lauds
that understanding, but more, it celebrates the transformation of building
into art.
Let us focus on the key stages of this process: a clear understanding of
the limitations ofa building problem is a necessary base for the healthy
development of a wrk of architecture, but by itself it will produce only
a building. Architecture starts with the perception of the potentials of
the problem and proceeds by selecting a path through the many possible
options. The architect finds or creates that path guided by inner convictions,
by aesthetic preferences and by the ideological framework of his or her
cultural environment. A good architect modifies that framework to some
extent with each design that he or she produces. In some artistic periods
we can measure the importance of a work by the extent of the change effected
on the theoretical basis of design or in our understanding of architecture.
In this manner Architecture is kept alive by being continuously transformed.
A world prize in architecture is given therefore to honor those individuals
who have clear minds with which to understand the realities of their building
problems, who have the intuition with which to perceive the opportunities
inherent in those problems, who have good eyes and hands with which to
seize those opportunities and make them art, and who have the knowledge
and toughness necessary to carry these intentions into built architecture.
In producing this transformation of a building problem into architecture
they also transform the Art of Architecture itself.
It is this dual contribution that we honor: First, the specific contribution
of the work of architecture, responsible to its site and neighbors, enjoyed
by its users and viewers, making its environment better and enriching our
experience and our lives. Second, the contribution to our understanding
of architecture, affecting in some degree all architects and all buildings
and helping to keep Architecture alive and replenished.
|