I admit, it’s very hard to take the Architectural works of Michael Graves seriously. He obviously had an excruciatingly happy childhood and is otherwise far too well adjusted to channel the angst and pain of the world we live in today. As proof please note that there are no rotating knives to be found in any of his completed projects. While his disconnect with the environment around him prevents Mr. Graves from garnering the larger public commissions, it has not been as effective in squelching the rest of his surprisingly prolific practice. We must acknowledge that we will be forced to live with his legacy of buildings exhibiting an untamed joie de vivre as well as all that comfy furniture. Is there any greater tragedy in the life of an architect?

That’s the kind of attitude you are likely to encounter when talking about Michael Graves within the halls of academia. Yet, he has engaged the materials and methods of today’s construction, he has sought to address the battle between the figural and the abstract, and has done so in a way that addresses the ultimate goal of architecture: delight. Those of us pursuing a New Discourse would be wise to take a closer look at the ouvre of Mr. Graves and his partners. There are many lessons to be learned from close study of his buildings. This essay is merely a launching point, a survey history to an extent, sampling the techniques and attitudes evident in his work that would pertain directly to the New Discourse. I, for one, intend to dig deeper into Michael’s bag of tricks to see where it can lead. He has surely informed and affected the practice of classical and traditional architecture and he has within his work the power to salvage the legacy of orthodox modernism from the dustbin of history; if only his peers would take him seriously.

While many discuss the importance of building with the materials and methods that we have today, Graves is perhaps the only major player in the constellation of starchitects taking on the challenge. James Stirling and Aldo Rossi appeared to be on similar tracks, but their careers were cut short before they became completely comfortable with the new dialect being formed. These materials include: metal stud walls, drywall partitions, curtain wall glass systems, sonotube columns, expansion joints, lay-in ceiling tile, paint and veneer. Contrast this with the materials used to construct the Guggenheim in Bilbao, titanium and twisted steel columns. Contrast again with the materials used at the Getty Center, enameled metal panels and curving glass walls. These are some of the tamer concoctions offered by the top practicing architects. All the while Mr. Graves is moving forward with the basics. It’s how he puts these pieces together that makes his vision unique.

The devil is in the details, supposedly. I don’t doubt it, since this is one area the world of architecture has been struggling with since Modernism supplanted Traditional Architecture as the dominant theory. There have been many failed attempts at humanizing Modernism. Whether it be a house, office building, or factory, for some reason most modernist buildings give off an antiseptic vibe. One rarely feels welcome in these spaces. There was a disconnect between the edifice and its occupants. Slowly architects started to reintroduce traditional components into their designs, albeit in ways that were ironic. This led to some constructability issues with the materials in use at the time. Exterior Insulation Finishing Systems were all the rage, as well as Fiberglass Reinforced Cement and extruded foam shapes. These items are basically glued onto to the exterior sheathing of the building requiring special weeps, caps, control joints, and internal metal supports to perform properly. They’ll fail otherwise. Therefore, such things as properly aligning the capital of a column with the entablature gave way to waterproofing and budgetary concerns. While the PoMo stars may have successfully navigated those obstacles, the would be imitators were less successful. Since this type of construction became the dominant mode in suburbia, this failure has been spread across the land at a rapid pace. 

Graves struggled with the problem all through the 1980’s, doing his darnedest to reconcile the inherent conflicts of Post-Modernism. The formal and figural aspects of his plans and elevations of this time will be discussed later. For now let us concentrate on the materials at his disposal and how he utilized them. With steel structural systems developed nearly a century prior to the heydays of PoMo wide spans were inexpensive, they just weren’t that inviting. Tall, narrow openings relate better to the human form, but require a fair amount of unneeded faux columns in order to look correct within a long span structure. Graves decided to go neutral, he adopted the circle and the square. Neither shape is wider than it is narrow or narrower than it is wide. Through these shapes he has been able to regularize his plans, elevations, and window openings. It can be argued that he still needs faux columns to reconcile his facades. The facades can also be read as a curtain wall skin over top the structure, however, since Michael cleverly shows off what is structure and what is not.

Let us take a look at the other elements such as windows, columns and beams. Again, the windows tend towards the square. In a more traditional architecture the window surrounds would showcase their structural nature. In the case of a stone lintel, the stone would be sized and shaped to support the load of the masonry above. In the case of a wood structure, the head casing would be sized to cover the header. Thus the beam has prominence and the loads are visually supported down to the ground. In the case of Michael Graves, the header is not performing a structural role, nor is it covering a header that would have been there otherwise. Therefore he thins out the header leaving the jamb casing to be the wider component. Since this happens over a square window the visual effect is legible. It is seen as consistent with the traditional notion that a window must have some form of casing to be weatherproof and with the modern notion of showcasing the structure and being honest with the nature of the materials. As we will see, the details and methodology behind these moves are internally consistent.

Another example is how Graves uses the column. He has experimented with his own variant of the Doric order, steel tube columns, and Dwarves. Michael has shied away from using the Doric in his most recent works and has not found cause to bring back the Dwarves as of yet. His work with the steel tube columns is, however, perhaps the most germane to the New Discourse. One may choose to disagree with Herseth’s assertion that the original Doric columns were representations of a vanquished army forced to bear the load of the monument to their victors, yet these columns definitely show that they are straining against the force of gravity. In contrast Michael’s recent work showcases the narrow round column as pushing upward, not bound by the ground nor in defiance. This, again, is consistent with the notion of being true to the materials and still allowing a visual connection of the structure and how it transfers its weight to the ground. Of course, these columns have no capital and no base which leads to the question of the entablature.

The hardest detail in traditional architecture to get right these days is the column to entablature relationship. It is rarely seen executed properly today, and in those rare instances you can bet it was thanks to the architect being on hand watching closely. Yet even properly executed entablature to column assemblies aren’t entirely weatherproof when using certain materials. In order to keep costs down hollow fiberglass columns have been used in lieu of stone. This requires the top be enclosed somehow, with the most common (and most incorrect) method being to line the edge of the capital with the entablature above. Sometimes the entablature is made to be as wide as the column capital, other times the entablature sits on the outside edge of the capital thereby leaving it visually unsupported. By eliminating the column capital Graves has eliminated this issue. The column sits either centered under the wider entablature or there is no entablature at all and the columns are just pushing up against the plane of the roof structure. In the instances of the latter the roof structure usually takes on a thickness appropriate to what the corresponding entablature would have been according to the system of proportion according to Graves. There is still a rational relationship, the columns are still straight up and down, the weight is still carried to the ground. All the while he is using parts from the modernist toolkit while maintaining respect for architectural traditions.

The skinning of the structure is what ties the various components together into a cohesive whole. He uses curtain walls of glass with squares and rectangles to remain neutral. Control joints in the exterior wall system are laid out in running bond patterns evoking the memory of masonry construction as opposed to the more common cacophony of intersecting grids preferred by most commercial architects. Considering stone temples contain details reminiscent of their wood predecessors this is a legitimate solution to a common problem. Again giving his work a legibility and connection to tradition not seen in the work of other moderns.

All of this is then given a coat of paint from the Tuscan palette that has become the hallmark of his work. Instead of a monotone scheme he uses a wide range of color. In lieu of relying solely on shadow he uses color as an accent. Perhaps drawing inspiration from the original colors of the Greek and Roman temples Michael has humanized his buildings by offering something more than just stainless steel and glass. This is a tremendous achievement in the realm of modernism since the clinical steel and glass structure has been by a most dehumanizing aesthetic.

Perhaps, his work is just a variation on the international style, or more aptly the components of that style. He then rejects the placeless austere boxes and intersecting planes that have been its hallmark. He rejects the ambiguous in favor of the figural, he chooses legibility over abstraction. He manages to avoid the gainsay of everything classical that has passed as modern theory the past few decades. He uses techniques from the Modern toolkit where appropriate, or to fit the site, or to accommodate the client, or just for fun. However, I think Graves has created his own order, not just a style.

Congratulations!