Philip Goad (Harvard) on British and American architecture

[0:00:01 Speaker 0] Okay, we will got started. What will be a very, very interesting session? And we will ask Rhonda Evans, the director of the Center for Australia and New Zealand Studies, to introduce our speaker. Well. [0:00:15 Speaker 2] It’s a pleasure for the Clark Center to once again partner with British studies to bring a scholar to Austin to participate in this esteemed seminar. I’m especially delighted to introduce today’s speaker, Professor Philip Goad, as I met him only last week at the annual meeting of the Australian New Zealand Studies Association of North America in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Based on the marvelous keynote address that he delivered there. I can say with confidence that we’re in for a real treat this afternoon, Professor Go does the Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, visiting professor of Australian Studies at Harvard University at his home institution, the University of Belvin. He is the Redmond, very distinguished professor and chair of architecture. Professor Goed also earned his PhD in architectural history from the University of Melbourne, and he’s taught there since 1992 during which time he served US founding director of the Melbourne School of Design. Between 2007 and 2000 and 12 Professor Goes research focuses on areas concerning architectural history, theory and design. He is an authority on modern Australian architecture with particular expertise on the life and work of Robin Boyd, which is the subject of today’s talk. Professor Goat has a long list of publications, professional accomplishments and accolades to which I cannot possibly do justice. So I will highlight on Lee a few. He is co editor of the Encyclopedia of Australian Architecture, published by Cambridge University Press. And by my count, he’s co authored 1/2 dozen books that consider various aspects of modernism in Australian art design and architecture. I’ll draw your attention to one book in particular that examines the Bauhaus diaspora, which was the fascinating subject of his keynote address at the conference. We both attended last week finally own note that Professor Goat is a life fellow of the Australia New Zealand’s Society of Architectural Historians and the Victorian chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects, having previously served both organizations in various capacities, in 2008 he was made a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. We’re grateful to Professor Goed for making the trip to Austin, particularly since he just made the trip to Mexico last week to attend that conference. And given that right now in Cambridge, it’s about 23 F. I suspect he is also grateful to be here with us today. I will now give the floor to Professor Goat. I [0:02:52 Speaker 0] think this place star podium, you mind speaking, sitting instead of standing. This is fine. So long she can all hear me Great. I guess I should. I should be fine. Well, thank you very much, Rhonda. In terms of where that it feels very much like on Australian Autumn, I have to say, or Melbourne Autumn. So it’s very beautiful to be here. So I’d like to think professors Roger Lewis and Philippa Louvain, co directors of the British studies program and, of course, Dr Rhonda Evans, director of the Clocks into here at the University of Texas, for the opportunity to read to speak to you today. Now my subject today is the participation of an Australian architect, Robin Boyd, In the major debates on the future of modern architecture In the 19 fifties and 19 sixties, Boyd, who you see on the screen, wrote regularly in the important British and American architectural journals, and this was unusual. He was an Australian. On the one hand, as an observer from the periphery, he gave balance and critical perspective across transatlantic divides. On the other, his participation was demonstrable. Evidence often escape from labels of provincialism that dogged Australian culture. In the same period, Bullet, even though he was an outsider, offered valuable opinion on architectures, global direction at a time of crisis in the discipline. In the two decades after World War Two, from around 1945 to around 1965 architectural journals played a key role in shaping global architecture culture more than ever before. In the aftermath of a destructive war, there emerged a crisis of confidence in architectures, ability to satisfy fundamental human, even existentially needs. It wasn’t just that Europe faced a daunting prospect of reconstruction, or that there was a desperate need for housing of all kinds across multiple continents, or that there was to be an imminent boom across all sections of the building industry. There was no overwhelming consensus as to what direction modern architecture might take in the English speaking world. Beyond the closed and rarefied meetings of elite groups of international lactics like CM on the Left, the Congress International, a picture Modern, or CMAs. It’s often known, and it’s Renegade offshoot from 1953. The group, who called themselves Team 10 both of which fostered their own networks of architectural discourse on, were arguably influential in doing so. Most architects, though, and most architecture firms subscribed as part of their daily practice to a least one possibly mawr, local architectural journals on often in the International Journal to as well as members of her profession, Architect’s also received the official documents of record from their respective institutes. In Britain, it was the highly respected Royal Institute of British Architects, journals TR i, B A J and in the U. S. It was the I I. J. The Journal of the American Institute of Architects on these journals dutifully recorded the business of the institute. It’s meetings and awards on sometimes lectures by esteemed guests and the questions that followed. Rain and Bantams Are I be licked, R. I. B. A lecture in February of 1961 for example, was called the History of the Immediate Future, and it became famous as a text that signaled Rainer Bantams, urging of the British architecture proficient to assimilate the human sciences into architecture or else risk introspection. But most architects tended to focus on the commercial journals, where practical information on building materials and construction was complemented by written on often lavish photographic reviews of buildings, as well as the occasional pace of architectural history, theory or criticism as well a saleable, obligatory morass of advertising that kept these journals financially afloat in Great Britain. That meant on the left, the Architectural Review and The Tactics Journal. And in the United States, that meant a much largest selection of magazines architectural record, Architectural Forum, progressive architecture, all based in New York, and from 1940 Bottom Rice. The Los Angeles based arts and architecture, rejuvenated under the attitude editorship of John, intends off all of these journals. It was the British one, the Architectural Review, which carried the most cachet as the intellectual and critical journal of the day. Its editor was J. M. Richards on the Left, who had an impressive support staff of writers, including, at various times the emigre historian Nicholas Pilsner and his recent PhD student, Rainer Banham. If the large gentleman on the left, who been grew an extraordinarily large beard in the sixties. Historians like John Summerton latest Sir John Sanderson on the far right. There was also a young Colin Rowe, who taught briefly here in Austin in the 19 fifties at UT and also the architect in illustrator Gordon Colin, amongst others. Indeed, J. M. Richards and his editorial team, assumed for A are a superior position within the global profession, and during the 19 fifties it promoted a form of triangulation of architectural discourse. The UK was a center of ideas and critique. The U. S. In British eyes was the center of production and limited critique, and Italy was another center of ideas and critique. And typical of this was the spat created between Rainer Banham and the Italian editor Ernesto Rogers. When Banham accused the Italians in the late fifties of rich of retreating from modern architecture on regressing toe, a form of what he called neo liberty, a directionless return to a local form [0:09:07 Speaker 7] of Art Nouveau, [0:09:09 Speaker 0] or a special feature on man made America on the left in December 1950 which showed British distaste with American consumerism, and I quote the mess that is man made America. But then, in 1957 on the right machine made America a complete about face of its earlier position that showed now British fascination with American technical achievements. Automobiles film On the irresistible rise of the Glass Curtain will skyscraper. So wait is an Australian architect fit into this trans Atlantic and trans continental journalistic power play? Why should he want to be part of it? And to what end? I want to show briefly this afternoon two reasons for this. First, that Melbourne based architect Robert Boyd, a gifted architectural writer in his own right, wanted at a personal level to position himself in their discourse to engage with it and contribute to it. Clearly, he felt equipped to do so and second, at an altruistic level, Boyd wanted to insert Australian architecture into the global conversation on modern architecture. In effect, what he was doing was that he positioned himself internationally to act as a mouthpiece for Australian architecture. Now, why to effectively demonstrate to the outside world that Australia’s own architectural culture was not parochial. On also to demonstrate to the Australian architecture profession back home that it’s work was on par with the rest of the world, and if it wasn’t it should apart, Aspire to be so. So let’s start around. 1950 in 1950. Robin Boy, trained as an architect in 19 thirties Melbourne, was 30 years old. He was already a well known architectural writer in his own city and within the architecture profession nationally. As a student he’d founded in 1939 the critical Pamphlet journal called Smudges, which was a direct play on the U. S. Journal pencil points front. Nice sort of ironic twist. And he and his fellow students awarded blots and bouquets of the month to good and bad buildings in Melbourne, a practice which could potentially be revived. Uh, certainly the students got into legal trouble with one firm of architects. They printed an apology in serious Gothic typeface. Boyd had also written for the student annual lines and article that drew its title a share of Ari from the British satirical journal Punch. Serving in New Guinea during World War Two, he wrote about the future of the Postwar house on the Postwar city for the Army newsletter Salt and in 1947 he born it being appointed director of the Royal Victorian Institute of Arctic Small Home Service. And in that role, he wrote weekly articles on contemporary architecture for the Milburn newspaper, The Age, a task that he undertook for six years, which made him a household name in the state of Victoria. So he’s practicing is an architect writing for the newspaper a weekly article about four or 500 words, as well as running small Little Home service, offering prospective homeowners plans and specifications for about $10.5 Australian pounds. In 1947 Boyd also published the first account of the history of modern architecture in Victoria. On the book was called Victorian Modern. He also designed the book’s cover, and it’s Typography in Victorian Modern. Boyd proposed the idea of the Victorian type ah, locally developed form of modern architecture that others around the world, namely cultural critics like Lewis Mumford here in the States, would identify that same year in the case of San Francisco’s Bay Area as a regional style. This was Boyd’s answer to a regional style the same year that Lewis Mumford came to national attention here for talking about regionalism in 1950 Boyd and his wife, Patricia, made a six month trip to Europe, his first as part of the hadn traveling scholarship on in London. He deliberately introduced himself to J. M. Richards at the architectural Reviews Officers. And shortly after afterward, in September of 1951 his first article for IR was published. Titled A New Eclecticism. This article was one of boards most important statements on Postwar architectural theory. In arguing for a broader interpretation of functional ism and using a classic binary technique technique of comparison, Boyd argued that one might consider functional ism from multiple inclusive viewpoints. And he used to illustrated houses as examples. One by the Viennese Emigrate Harry Seidler, the other by Melbourne, Actiq, Roy Grounds. On both approaches, he urged, were valid works of modern architecture. No one was better than the other, even though birth drew from different aesthetic and material practices, and what he was arguing for was that surely one can. If one satisfies function, you can We can talk about an idea of vital eclecticism at this time, a vital idea of choice. And in doing so, Robin Boyd was teasing readers with another ism because the review at this stage had published widely about what they called new empiricism in the mid 19 forties, the idea of Swedish regional architecture. Boyd’s article appeared in 1951 Total New Eclecticism and famously Rainer Bantams New Brutal Ism. Another one appeared in 1955. While the terms new empiricism and new brutalism stuck on have since become part of architectures, Lingua Franca Boyd’s eclecticism did not. Despite architectural historians today acknowledging the multiple directions of Postwar modern architecture, Boyd’s inclusive relativism was too radical an idea. In 1951 it was just essentially too sensible. The other problem was that the term eclecticism smacked of history of the 19th century of dalliance rather than the masculine, rational tones of empiricism and brutalism that evoked British philosophical thought and avant garde French art practice. Undeterred, both Boyd and they are the British journal. Uh, further articles by Boyd soon appeared. His next piece was called Port Philip Idiom. Recent houses in the Melbourne region on it brought his regional stark addict argument for Australian architecture to the world stage. While later articles on Melbourne’s Victorian era architecture on Victorian cast on and recent embassy buildings in Canberra, none of the many good, I’d have to say, gave international readers a broad understanding of Australian architecture. Boyd’s next major theoretical piece, in February 56 reiterated his 1951 call for a more inclusive understanding of what functional ism in modern architecture might mean on at this time. His title. The Functional Neurosis hit the mark. No mention of Australia, a tall nor the e word eclecticism, but a call for architects to accept that modern architecture. Martin Town newfound rich richness and yet not abandoned its obedience to the satisfaction of function. 1956 was an important year for Boyd. That year, he accepted an invitation from the dean of architecture in M. I T. The architect Piotre Belluschi, to spend a year in Cambridge, visiting Bemis, professor for the 1956 57 academic year. Aside from minimal teaching duties, Board traveled. Win it whenever he could meeting architects on looking at the latest American architecture, he visited New York and, as in London, he sought out and introduced himself to journal editors. He met Thomas Creighton, far left progressive architecture Douglas Haskell and Peter Blake at Architectural Forum, the two in the middle, and John Knox Sheer at architectural Record, and he offered to submit articles to them. They were interested, and Boyd began writing. In April 1957. Progressive Architecture published his article, The Search for Pleasing This, Using quotations and Images of the Vitruvian Man From Rudolph, It covers very famous book of 1949 architectural principles in the Age of Humanism. Boyd emphasized the consistency of the rule that these two universal men and he mentioned a whole range of these Italian theorists were contained precisely within the perfect geometric form of a circle. He then compared this focus on the body with the mathematics of Lucca, Basu’s module or the top image on the left hand side. And there’s some irony in this same article. It’s heavily theoretical in a very professional magazine On the advertisement below is for Westinghouse on the title is Architectural Beauty is more than skin deep, sort of. I don’t think he would have planned this at all. What was Boyd was doing? He was comparing Renaissance ideas off proportions at a time when architects globally, we’re looking for an idea of what beauty meant in modern architecture. But he ultimately found fault with look, embassies, admission and look Embassy in his book, The Modular freely admits, while an Arctic could be free to depart from the module or any time you like as occasion demanded, Boyd’s point was the contradictory nature of the contemporary fondness for the search for the idea of a mathematical formula for beauty through a revival of the idea of proportional systems. This was boards only article, foot progressive architecture. Its content would even would have, in fact suited much better. The British readership of the Architectural Review and his contact. Thomas Creighton died. The Nick Sorry, John Locke Sheer died the next year, so his contact had gone. Indeed, Boyd’s American article on pleasing nous predated the now infamous debate on whether proportional systems made good design easier at London’s R. I B A. In June 57 where paid a Smithson declared the whole discussion 10 years too late. Now, boards next article was called Decoration Rides again, and it was clearly a play on. Many of you might know the movie cowboy movie Destry rides again. Uh, decoration rides again appeared in architectural record in September 57. It was much better directed towards his American readership. On its focus was the current tendency then towards applied, insinuated and invited decoration, and for Boyd, the main offender with a perforated screens that you see there on the right of Edward Durell Stone’s U. S Embassy in New Delhi. The reason for these articles was Boyd’s identification of a splintering of aesthetic practice that was translated transatlantic as well as ideological. Returning to Australia by September 1957 Boyd had now successfully inserted himself into both the British and American mainstream architectural press. And he done so largely on the basis of not writing about Australian architecture but about the aesthetic dilemmas facing modern architecture, especially the rise of beauty in recent American architecture. On the possibilities also offered by the new shape park architecture of concrete shells and tensile structure, Boyd would consolidate his position is Australian correspondent for the Architectural Review, effectively acting in that role for 20 years after 1951 and he’d become Australian correspondent for Architectural Forum from 1959 until 1971 a period off 12 years. His October 58 articles for the Architectural Review Engineering of Excitement was internationally one of his most influential. It highlighted the global phenomenon of what was in court shape architecture On their, Boyd agreed with Italian architect Eugenia Montessori statement that the mists is complete, a quote that Boyd borrowed directly from the Italian theorist Bruno’s. Evie’s contribution in March 1956 to Architectural Forum, where, in withering style, Bruno Zevi, the Italian, had critiqued Hero Silence, Chris Key Auditorium and Chris Key Chapel at M. I. T. The shell structure and then the cylinder. Both buildings designed exactly the same time but have completely different formal intent. Boyd’s article was illustrated with a dazzling cross section of shell structures across the globe. He then focused on the shaped buildings of American architect Eero Saarinen. But his real aim was to warn that if lapses of logic like the module or were vain, attempts to divide device formulas for beauty so to one should be wary of the delusion that the new shape architecture was leading to new realms of architectural beauty. Beauty now was also no accident that Boyd included in this article the Sydney Opera, half tiny little image on the bottom, right on Australian building, albeit designed by a Danish architect. This was to be a feature of several of Boyd’s articles for the Architectural Review. The Subtle and some might say this is not very subtle insertion of Australian buildings into these articles. In 1963 for example, in a are in his article called Under Tension Boards. Global Review of Tensile Architecture, he included images off local lactics, Kevin Bolan’s contest upon Arch Rice House. These all these buildings on the right and we included in the same article, Melbourne’s Olympic Swimming Stadium, the building below Sidney Myer Music Bowl, which is the 3rd 1 on the right. Andi even his own house, the bottom image on the right, alongside works by Frei Otto, Bruce Golf and Victor Lundy, amongst others. The aim, it would appear, was toe underlying Australia’s early an equivalent engagement with contemporary ideas, a form of negating what Australian cultural theorist had described as the tyranny of distance ah fear from being distant from the centre. In short, what we in Australia call a cultural cringe. This may also help to explain the motives behind boards characterization Australia as something like a sturdy little boat battling across lonely waters, surging with cross currents from Europe and America and this was his contribution to J. M. Richards, editor of A are his book New Buildings in the Common Wills. Boyd, though, added the extra line that the country headed ineffectual rudder in a typical Australian form of self deprecation. Boyd criticized rather than celebrated Australia’s architectural achievements to 1960 which the company illustrations actually countered with some conviction. Even his own house that you see here is a fine example off mid century architecture, and every architect that visits his house today gets out their phone and photographs madly. But Boyd’s tactics seem to be a very deliberate strategy of in the text, negating Australian achievement but supporting Australian architecture where one would look at the photographs ago. This isn’t this isn’t this is what he says. It’s actually quite good now. Boyd’s first article for Architectural Forum was in July 1959. Entitled Has Success Spoiled Modern Architecture, Boyd focused on what he saw his contemporary architectures, abandonment of early modern functional ism in favour again of a shared search for pleasing effect on an individualistic architecture culture. Where and I quote, everyone would like to be a [0:25:41 Speaker 5] one man ever on guard, [0:25:43 Speaker 0] the article concluded. with photographs of six different interpretations of beauty. It’s not clear who put the six examples of beauty together Boyd or the editor, Douglas Haskell, or his assistant, Peter Blake. But the images were drawn from forums own photographic holdings and the inclusion on the far right top right of Victoriano Vega knows he stood instituted. Mark Jandi, the only non American design building in the selection, cannot be accidental. The insertion of the Italian building, however modest into the English speaking discourse, was a first, while the building had been published in Italy and France will beforehand. The inclusion twice in Architectural Forum predated the English critic Rayner Bantams. Brief discussion of the building in May 1961. It’s larger feature in air in the same month, and it’s eventual celebration. In Bannon’s book, The new Brutalism in 1966 clearly boards understanding of Italian architecture was also sophisticated. In that same months, May of 1961 Boy became directly involved with contemporary Italian architectural discourse. He participated in the survey conducted by MINUSTAH Rogers, editor of Cast Abella. You see here the cover on the left, the Wonderful contents page, with a still from one of Italian written neorealist film of the forties and this issue of Casa Bella reviewed the last 15 years of Italian architecture. Boyd joined AH, host off Italian architects and four non Italians. There were the only four internationals who responded. There was Max Bill, the German director off the of the Orme School. But there was also Boyd’s editorial colleagues, the Architectural Forum, Douglas Haskell and the architectural reviews editor J. M. Richards. So he was in good company. Boyd was asked six questions as where it was everyone else on Italian architecture, and it was here that Boyd, in answer to the question, is to Cassa Bella’s fifth question, which asked who had made the most important contributions to architectural criticism in recent years. Boyd pointed to the British and by implication, to Raina Banham, and this was clearly not want CASS Abella wanted to hear. They published boards words in Italian, but pointedly redacted their appearance in English. In The English Summary, he got a sentence or two on. You actually have to translate the whole thing to see part of the reason that the Italians had this special issue wars, too. If you like counter British crews criticism of Italian [0:28:36 Speaker 5] architecture culture at the time. [0:28:40 Speaker 0] But it was also in 1961 that Boyd’s aesthetic loyalties moved in a new direction in 1961 on the recommendation of Walter Gropius, who Boyd had met in Melbourne in 1954. On the left, the New York publishing house George Brasilia commissioned Boy to write the first monograph on the Japanese Arctic Kinzer Tunggal, released in 1962. This book not only put a Japanese architect alongside stars of the late fifties and early sixties like back Mr Fuller, Philip Johnson, Louis Kahn and hero Saarinen. It also elevated Boyd Toe a new critical status alongside other authors in the Siri’s like John Jack Abyss, Vincent Scully and Alan Timco. Six. The success of this book was followed by Boyd being commissioned to write another book on Japanese architecture. New Directions in Japanese Architecture in 1968 another part of another Siri’s that in Consolidated Boys position alongside critics and historians like Victoria uh, Greg rt roasted Landau and a young Robert Stern, later to become Dean at Yale. Thereafter avoids international writings in the 19 sixties, and especially after 1965 with the public ocean of his book, The Puzzle of Architecture, which concisely summarized many of the themes of his journal Journal articles. Boyd left contemporary American architecture behind with a focused almost entirely on reviewing contemporary Japanese architecture, reporting on the controversy of Your Lord since resignation from the Sydney Opera Ask Commission in 1966 while the building was just half constructed on critical common trees on the architecture of world expositions. Now these letter articles related directly to part of Boyd’s architectural practice. We cannot forget that throughout this entire period, from 1947 until 1971 board was running with others, a busy architectural practice in Melbourne. He was not a full time journalist, nor was he a full time academic and two important roles that he had after 1965 was is exhibits designer for Australian pavilions in Montreal. In 1967 on Ahsoka in 1970 with his own use of architectural tack tactics was to suggest two separate thoughts as to a message about Australia that visitors might take away with them in Montreal. His approach was to create a relaxed, giant living room of white shag pile carpet with talking chairs that suggested ease in relief. When you sat down your bottom activated speakers that started speaking. If if you had an olive green, it would speak in English. If it was orange, it would speak in French because we’re in Montreal. But it was very smart invention in Tokyo. His strategy was to submerge them in a sense around film performance before sending them through a space tube, a tunnel of technology, one about life and living the other about technology and science. He was the construction of an Australian modernism, defined not by architecture but by exhibition. Boyd’s 1968 article, in Entitled Anti Architecture and his Siris of articles on expose and exhibitionism, reveal a new openness to architectures changing profile. In the late 19 sixties, writing on Habitat in Montreal, the German tense holler engineer Frei Otto and Japanese architects of Expo 70 bodies cautious, even ambivalent, to rate rapidly changing definitions of architecture, admitting that anti architectures promises the more radical revolution that it than that of any new style. Boyd, in 1968 was among the first to attempt to make distinctions between Archy Graham, the British high tick group, which he classified as anti architecture and the Japanese metabolism who do the constructions on the bottom right, which he classifies, classified its architecture far out but loyal to Vitruvian principles between Robert Venturi, the American aging always close to anti architecture and who will finally eliminate his own contradictions only when [0:32:57 Speaker 8] he actually achieves it [0:32:59 Speaker 0] and Charles Morell, the new barn ists. These Charles Moore, of course, designed See Ranch in Northern California in March 1970. In his article, A Glimpse of the Future in Architectural Forum, Boyd described Nariaki Kesha Cork hours to Caraboo beautifully in great name for Pavilion, a beauty Lian Ah, freeform steel pipe framed multistory assembly at Expo 70 as and I quote, ah, glimpse as through a glass polarized darkly of what a building of the future might look like. Boyd here was speculating on what mechanisms and design techniques were brought to bed to destroy the architectural identity of a system. Here, Boyd offered the most frank and precent critic of what contemporary Japanese architecture was offering to the world, and I quote here, suffocation by its own servants may be the future of architecture. Ah, Frankenstein Ian end as many have been hinting the Takara building actually demonstrates the possibility for the first time on demonstrations like this are among the best justifications for world fears. In 1970 Boyd established a SYRIZA Internet International Lectures in Melbourne, choosing each speaker inviting them to Australia on within each, with each lecture publishing but that lecture as a small book under the imprint off the Melbourne Architectural pay papers, only three would eventuate. The 1st 2 were given by his editorial contacts. J. M. Richards, editor of The Architectural Review. Peter Blake, who was then editor of Architectural Forum, the two journals through which board had become a respected international critic. So it was almost like gratitude that [0:34:46 Speaker 8] he was doing this. [0:34:48 Speaker 0] Boyd, however, didn’t live to hear the third lecture or read the book. That result resulted. He died on the 16th of October 1971 aged 52 3 days later, on the evening of the day of his funeral, Italian architect and team 10 member Giancarlo DeCarlo gave the Lecture on Architecture of Participation, which was published a small book of the same title on the Left in 1972. As the blurb on the back of the book states. Giancarlo DeCarlo completes a triangle, England, America, Italy. Clearly, this is where Boyd saw the major axis of discourse on the same text. Giancarlo Two colors Ticks was republished in prospective 17 The Yale Journal in 1980 that Yale Public Ocean brought John Color to color back into the international spotlight of API on a participatory design, a text that’s been quoted and venerated ever since but actually originated through Boyd’s invitation to join colored colored Little Melbourne. In 1971 J. M. Richards would write Boyd’s obituary in The London Times, and in 1973 the American Institute of Act ICS posthumously awarded Robin board its annual architecture critics metal. It was an endorsement of the respect with which he was regarded internationally. Boyd had achieved much, too, though invariably as an outsider, not through invitation but infiltration. He invited himself into the circle, and he’d worked hard to prove himself in the innocent international setting that his writings were reference and discussed at some length by the celebrated Eat Italian, a historian and theorist Manfredo Tough Fourie in his 1960 68 book theory and histories of architecture is further testament to the regard in which Boyd was held. But another important aspect to boards international engagement was his firm belief that Australians deserve to be part of the international scene, and his success in doing so was a demonstrably example of flouting the so called cultural cringe the distributor Australians labored under in the three decades under 1940 after 1945. But talk more significantly. What I hoped I’ve done this afternoon is demonstrate they for too long. The many voices that gave structure to Postwar architectural discourse in the fifties and sixties have been largely unheard on, undocumented in the disciplines broader historiography. Boyd was like another critic of the day, Sibyl Moholy Nagy in New York, who also died in 1971 whose critics in journals such as progressive architecture and architectural form struck a chord with practitioners and theoreticians and gave reason for pause. Their writings form part of what Belgian historian Hilda Hanen has called a shadow cannon, a parallel discourse to the grand narratives of architectural history that dominated the period. Boyd may have had divided loyalties to the U. S and Great Britain, but he was committed to the idea that to be part of dialogue on global critique, one had to participate and speak up or risk never being heard. Now the centers of discourse that frame architecture culture unnecessarily [0:38:07 Speaker 5] biased, and I might be [0:38:08 Speaker 0] talking about literature, any other discipline. But today, hindsight requires acknowledgment of a broader selection of voices to be heard for Anglophone architecture, culture boards. Criticism of global architectural events on the simultaneous promotion of Australian architecture was important. His voice also represents a different axis of architecture culture in the fifties and sixties, one that included Australia at the same time Africa, Asia and Oceania, Oceania on hints places like Canada and South Africa deserve inclusion on. Recent scholars have made important contributions to constructing Postwar histories for locations that lacked a figure like Boyd. Such histories require looking trans nationally across boundaries away from the cannons on asking whether intellectual and design sustenance wants to be found elsewhere. Architectural history and theory continues to pit perpetuate gaps in the theorizing and documenting of architectural production, especially in Africa, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, where the concerns often were and continue to be very different, like architectural design culture, which lionizes. It’s designed geniuses. So to architectural history, culture perpetuates the celebration of its own creators. For too long, figures like Nicholas Piers, now Siegfried Gideon and Henry Russell Hitchcock dominated the construction of modernism’s discourse. Their inheritance, like Raina Banham and later Manfredo Tafuri, amongst others, did much to broaden the discussion in the sixties and seventies. But in many respects, they consolidated on already economical rating of modernism. The globalization of Postwar discourse and the mechanisms of its definite dissemination require broader, more complex networks to be recognized and documented. So to conclude Robin Boyd pay to click key role in trying to place Australian architecture in an international sitting. Attempting to insert one form of local production into the prevailing international conversation, he attempted to describe the situation as it Waas novels. That should be. He took part in a sustained dialogue about architectural form that was focused heavily within architectural journals in the fifties and sixties. He was also part of the phenomenon of the 19 sixties scholarly picture book, those new direction Siri’s. He documented the 19 sixties move towards the dissolution of the architectural cannons, especially through Expo 67 Expo 70 and his familiarity with an and sustained exposure to contemporary architecture earned him international regard. But he was not without floors, but he was also a constant present presence. And he wasn’t alone. Like the voices of several others judo cult Erman, Sibyl Moholy Nagy who have mentioned, and Noboru Carazo to name just a few, those oven apparent critical second tier Boyd’s voice, albeit from the margins, deserves to be heard in the ongoing documentation on analysis of Postwar architectural discourse. Thanks very much