zein 2009 other brazilian modernities

8/3/2019 ZEIN 2009 Other Brazilian Modernities

1/10

1

Session PER007Text, Building, Nation: Architectural Narrative in South AmericaChair, Stella Nair

Other Brazilian modernities of 1950-70s

Ruth Verde ZeinProf. Dr. ArchitectMackenzie Presbyterian UniversitySo Paulo, [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The internationally consecrated narrative about Brazilian Modern architectureacknowledges a collection of exceptional works abruptly ending with Brasilia(1960). A pluralistic approach to Brazilian Modernity can devise a more interestingand complex panorama, from 1950s anxieties to 1960-70 brutalist trends,surpassing the bias against the so-called tardo-modern tendencies so as torecognize a wide variety of urban developments and outstanding buildings. Thissession will try to explore other paths and dissimilar approaches aimed to broadenthe scene and encourage the appreciation of alternative 1950-60 narratives, withfocus on Paulista Brutalist architecture and connections with other similar trends allover Latin and North America.
http://lattes.cnpq.br/8375309081976653http://lattes.cnpq.br/8375309081976653mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://lattes.cnpq.br/8375309081976653


2/10

2

Other Brazilian modernities of 1950-70s

The internationally consecrated narrative about Brazilian Modern architectureacknowledges a collection of exceptional works, inexplicably born in the 1930sfrom chance and genius, abruptly ending with Brasilias inauguration in 1960. Fiftyyears late Brazilian architecture remains, for a foreigner observer, framed in thesame frozen images of a glorious past suddenly stopped by a perplexing void. Theso-called critical revisions of Modern Architecture written in the 1980s maintainedthe fiction by ignoring other possible interesting issues, works and architects inBrazil, pausing at the same B&W stills of Brasilias construction site, not botheringto actually visit the place to recheck their assumptions1.

The growing distance in time adds to several conceptual turnabouts to provide anew scenario in which such worn-out stationary ideas do not suffice anymore: thesituation claims to a proper revision. The relative depletion of the post-moderncritique against classical modernity gave room to a more sympathetic evaluation ofits results stripped of previous Manichean excesses, reconsidering the years 1950son as a complex, contradictory and valuable heritage, now cherished by ablossoming neo-modern generation of architects after the 1990s. Contemporarypluralistic approaches expanded the floor admitting other perceptions andsensibilities, and opening the possibility to understanding different planetaryrealities not anymore as distorted mirrors of a supposedly correct or centralstand (mostly European), but trying to devise its own parameters of judgment and

appreciation.

Following that lead it would perhaps be possible to suppose that some subjects,previously labeled under a fixed tag as non-relevant may in fact give new evidence,helping to compose an intensely varied and multifarious situation, inside whichdifferent interpretations can be accepted; not as an absolute solution to replace thefailing truths, but as discrete parts of a wide, and not necessarily finite jigsaw.

One could ask again what could have happened to Brazilian architecture after (andbefore) Brasilia that remains unseen and unheard of; and also, if the commoninterpretations about the broader scene in which they were inscribed - meaning,the middle decades of 20th century - should not be looked again from their barefacts, surpassing the ideological bias against the so-called tardo-modernity - ascornful label imposed by the 1980s writers over the 1950-70s tendencies. Inorder to construct other points of view, it is necessary to look again that panoramadropping the curfews that overloaded it, to better recognize its complexity andvariety. In Brazils case such path would turn possible to discover a wide varietyof urban situations that go beyond the beaten track of the favelas x Brasilianearsighted polarity; or else, acknowledging the quality of several outstandingbuildings that must be noised about by means of more careful analysis.

1 One can find plenty of biased misconceptions and actual incorrect information in the

canonical books of Modern Architecture history about Brazil and Brasilia, as shown in ZEIN &LIMA (2000).


3/10

3

The relevance of such revision does not exclusively attend the historiographerinterest. There are some clues indicating that contemporary 21st architecture leansmostly over that modernity of the 1950-70s, and less so, over the classical, pre-II WW modernity. For sure, both modernities are connected, but they are notquite the same thing, and to attend to their differences turns out to be highlyrelevant, speciallu when there is no need anymore to stick together against theirprevious academic enemies.

The classical modern roots fed the post-modern revisions and proposals of the1980-90s; but now they are no more the main source of relevant precedentsfeeding the contemporary architectures. At least, that is what happens very clearlyin Brazils, where the gap between contemporary Brazilian architecture and our

classical modernity can only be properly surpassed with the aid of a thoroughrevision of the 1950-70 decades, its propositions and debates. In other words, inthe turn of the millennium, Brazilian architectures roots stand not anymore (or notexclusively) over the classical, Carioca modernity of the 1930-60s, butsignificantly (although not exclusively) over the uneasy soil of the revisionistPaulista trends of the 1950-70s.

This paper aim is to try and explore the possibility of opening other paths, tobroaden the scene and to promote dissimilar approaches, looking back from apresent-day critical vision to encourage the appreciation of alternative narrativesabout the 1950-70s; with focus, in the Brazilian ambit, on the Paulista Brutalistarchitecture2. It has also some good reasons to believe that such approach can beuseful (at least, methodologically) to broaden the understanding of Latin and NorthAmerica architectural situation of the same period, providing some similarities thatoccur, not only by synchronicity, but also, due to actual but often forgotten andsubtle connections.

Before proceeding, it is necessary to state one or two precisions. The famousBrazilian Modern architecture of the years 1935-60 should be better designated asthe architecture of the Carioca School3. Also, it is better not to understand itsworks and authors as a single grain bloc, as to do not impede the possibility ofdevising the many important and varied levels and shifts it contains; and also, toease the examination of a possible turning point happening during the 1950s - defacto preceding (and/or superimposing) Brasilias design and construction moment.

As a second point, it is necessary to state that it is not the intention of this paper tominimize the importance of the Carioca School and the outstanding quality of itsworks. Surely, they were deservedly acclaimed on the immediate post-WWII due toits timely international diffusion, magnified by the void of that reconstructionmoment - but that appraisal was only possible thanks to their truly excellent

2 By choosing to restrict the analysis to the Paulista Brutalism of the 1950-70s I do not inferthat it was the one and only important tendency of that moment, neither that it has any kindof precedence except the one given by the facts, meaning, that it has an evident quantitativepredominance over other manifestations. On the contrary: by assuming a pluralistic positionIm quite aware that it is necessary to stay attentive to other simultaneous and differentexamples. If Im not mentioning them here and now, it is just for practical reasons, and not

for lack of interest.3 Carioca is the patronymic name of Rio de Janeiro inhabitants.


4/10

4

results. Finally, it is also necessary to revise the canonical stories that keep theclassical Brazilian (Carioca) modern architecture hostage of a mythical narrative:as an inexplicable exception, or as a displaying of a fancy modern baroque style,as an exception exclusively born from the geniality (meaning, by sheer chance) ofa group of talented architects. Thats another frozen narrative, and not a healthyone. So, although it is not this papers focus, it may be necessary to stress a fewwords to enlarge such simplified vision.

Up to the moment, the best effort to surpass such conundrum was made by CarlosEduardo Dias Comas who contributed to renovate the debate of Brazilian Modernarchitecture through several articles and essays that apex in his doctoral thesis(Comas, 2002). For this paper, it will have to suffice to clip and quote some of his

statements. For example, Comas (1987:22) defines that:Modern Brazilian Architecture is still a consecrated and convenient short toname the work of a school, tributary to the European avant-gardeexplorations of the 1920s, more attentive to the Italian debate than usuallyknown, openly influenced by Le Corbusier and Mies, surely engaged in theovercoming of the International Style, reconciling as well modernity andtradition expressions and spirit of place and time, in the more general nameof Latin culture and in the more particular name of Brazilian culture. Thisschool has no prerogative or exclusivity neither on the modernity nor on thenationality expressions and even lesser it has the credit of representing anational essence; but it is through a simultaneous appeal to a consciousnessof time and territory that it determines and establishes itself in the 1930-45

period.

One of the important aspects that Comas highlights is the peculiar Brazilian ModernArchitecture intent to put forth, in a very early historic moment, the reconciliationof an identity search - through a truly commitment of our modern architects withour past tradition -, along with a concerted effort to insert the country in thecontemporary debates. That could be made with the aid of Le Corbusiers ideas,which in any case were thoroughly re-interpreted, so as to gain different colors andsignificances than those held by the European avant-garde trends. Comas(1987:25) says about that:

[The main works of the 1935-1945 period were] Modern buildings of

confessed Corbusian affiliation. [] They became the paradigms of aBrazilian School of Modern Architecture that flourished up to 1955. [] Thiswas Modern Architecture that did not claim to be exclusively concerned withthe establishment of unprecedented design solutions of universal validity forthe unprecedented design problems of the Machine Age, nor intended to bea total rupture with the disciplinary past. This was Modern Architecture thatreflected the contextual specifics of a given place and a given history. Thereflection was deliberate. By the orthodox canons of the 1920s, a heresy.

As it shows in the few clippings above, the panorama is obviously more complexthan the tales about it, and can hardly be here summarized at length. As explainsComas: [The above] observations do not exhaust the acknowledgment about []Modern Brazilian Architecture from 1930-1957. But it reveals that the peak of that


5/10

5

iceberg reposes on a wider and deeper disciplinary basis that cannot be kept underthe easy blanket of the geniality sole explanation.

In any case, the prestige gained abroad by Modern Brazilian Architecture (or better,by the Carioca School) rebounded home through the amplification of its importanceand influence inside the country. After 1945 it begins to be accepted not only asone of the modern trends in the stake but as the mainstream one a situationthat helped to assure its predominance up to the inauguration of Brasilia (1957-60); at least, nominally.

Surely, it would not be incorrect to find an outstanding, but perhaps superficial,local unanimity of language and discourse during the 1950s and thats the line ofinterpretation of Bruand (1981) and less so, of Segawa (1997)4. Besides, all aroundthe world architects and architectures showed, during that decades, a remarkableapparent homogeneity that seemed to signalize the triumph of the Modern ideals(as sorted out and proclaimed by the organic critics of Modern Movement). Butunder the appearances several profound divergences were concealed, differentreferences were being used; distinct attitudes and aims were at stake in manyundercurrents that would sprout to full life only in the following decades.Divergences that cannot be explained, unless one looks, with keen eyes, to theunderside of that apparent unanimity (Goldhagen & Legault, 2000).

The years 1935-1945 are of consolidation of the Carioca School; the next decade,of dissemination of its lessons to other Brazilian regions (COMAS, 2002). After theII World War, several Brazilian architects with already well established, modern

(but not quite Carioca) repertories aimed to keep pace with it and explore someof its qualities in their works. But already in the end of the 1940s and in thebeginning of the 1950s even during the more promising and fertile moment ofthe Brazilian Carioca Modern School - there starts a rising opposition against someof its superfluity traits in Brazil and abroad. Even if most of those critiques can beseen today as biased and prejudiced, some substratum lasted. Perhaps it had beenquite convenient to assure the particular Paulista5 mood favoring a drier, simplifiedand engineer-oriented architecture (as against the apparently superficial, hedonisticand formalist Cariocan architecture).

Simultaneously, in the early 1950s some of the Carioca school architects alreadystart to propose some works pointing to new routes: be it in the simpler and direct

volumetric examples developed by Oscar Niemeyer (n.1907) from the Parque do4 Even when speaking about the 1960s, when things begin to clearly drift apart, both preferto stick to the idea of a single-minded continuity and closed identity of Modern Brazilianarchitecture. Bruand, writing in the 1960s, could have been mistaken due to the proximityof the facts; Segawa, writing in the 1990s, do not have this excuse: when he states, forexample, that the most important factor concurring to the materialization of an architectureindentified as Paulista is it character of continuity with the Carioca line (1998:148) heshows his utter reluctance of asserting the existence of a Paulista architecture in itself exceptas a continuation and sameness, blinding the obvious differences in favor of the similarities.Here the attitude is the opposite; or better here Im trying to display a complementaryposition. From a contemporary point-of-view, there is no need to force a univocalinterpretation into a so large and ample panorama; specially, when the examination of the

bare facts keep on showing other possibilities.5 Paulista is the patronymic name from So Paulo inhabitants.


6/10

6

Ibirapuera ensemble in So Paulo (1951-53) on; be it in the example of AffonsoEduardo Reidy (1909-1964) precocious use of large rough concrete structures, as inthe Brazil-Paraguay Elementary School (Asuncin, Paraguay, 1952) and in theMAM-RJ headquarters (Rio de Janeiro, 1953), both works of a brutalist languageand magnified external transversal porticoes in exposed concrete.

Appearing in the scenario at approximately the same time, the rising PaulistaBrutalist trend, supported by a talented new generation of local architects with theopportune alliance of some elder masters, begins to turn the game of prestige:from a few special works in the 1950s the trend expands exponentially in the1960s to assume a prominent position inside Brazilian architectural panorama although it never becomes completely or pacifically accepted by the architectural

community, even when its influence was quickly spread to other regions andarchitects, reaching a peak in the 1970s.

After 1961, some of these architects and works were labeled as brutalists: a titleshared, but not necessarily accepted, by many others architects and works in Brasiland in several countries all over the world. Scanning again that panorama, one canfind good reasons for that label, since there is notable likeness among all so-calledBrutalist works and their timing is similar, no matter where 6: there are few butsignificant Brutalist examples in the 1950s, there is a virtuoso crescendo in the1960s and in the 1970s there happens a reiterative repetition and aggrandizementof its formulas - that, along with some technical problems (as for example, the badweathering of the exposed concrete structures) quickly exhaust the initial creativeimpulse in to mannerist stylization attitude. Which was, with good reasons, much

despised by the 1980s critical revisions - which nevertheless preferred to castaway the water with the baby, by mostly ignoring the best Brutalist examples ofthe 1960s, for the sake of the worst.

So Paulo Brutalist works and architects also shared, in some aspects, similardiscourses presented in several international forums of the 1950s, of a vaguelymoral tone, leaning on the necessity of recuperating the truly modernity ideals(with different interpretations of what that should de facto mean), urging on thenecessity of not betraying those ideals and insisting on the pursuit of an ethicaldiscourse as a proper ground to architecture.

Curtis (1996:550) notes the problematic connection between both issues the

claim for an ethical discourse and the Brutalist architectures artistic preferences: the themes of naked truth and structural honesty were interwoven inremarkable buildings of the early 1960s, not all of them indulging in grandiose,monumental expression.

Despite that, there are several difficulties impeding the establishment of a suitableand uncontroversial connection between brutalist ethical ideas and brutalistarchitectural forms. What is easy to grasp is that the brutalist architecturespartakes some common visual characteristics deriving from similar constructive,plastic and technological features, like the use of raw materials without finishing,

6 The author is currently leading a research on the Brutalist trends of the 1950-70s I other

American countries, from Canada, United States and Mexico, giving continuity to myprevious researches on the subject in Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay.


7/10

7

the predominant emphasis and display of the structural solutions, a tendency toexaggerate and overstate some chosen details, etc. Nevertheless, when studiedmore carefully, discourses and results do not completely pair, disregarding the factthat they neednt (even if they wanted) to. Besides, the simultaneity of the Brutalisttrend, worldwide spanned in a variety of places, inside different economical,political and historical realities resulted in different national contributions to it,accomplishing peculiar characteristics and dissimilar ideological and politicalpositions7. What can be said, in the end, is that, even accepting the name

brutalism as a handy label to visually gather so many different works, it stillcannot be easily labeled as a steady movement, possibly sharing an exclusivelyand homogeneous ethical point of view. Although it surely can be perceived as amost homogenous quasi-style: perhaps, the only bond between all the Bruatlist

stuff is just what one easily sees when looking from a predominately esthetic andplastic perspective.

For all these reasons, and perhaps others, Brutalism cannot be kept still under anarrow understanding that exclusively connects the word with a precise origin(except perhaps, post-war Corbusier); and by no means the title exclusivelybelongs to the British new brutalism proposals8. A more concerted research onthe subject can easily track the appearance of brutalist architectures all over theworld at precisely the same time, with no single central source (again, except LeCorbusiers), a spreading attribute also recognized by Banham, who cleverly coinsanother useful tag: that of a brutalist connection: or else, Brutalism as theconvenient label to set a complex net of similarities with no neat center. It is

perhaps a generational achievement, helped by that moments already easyinterchange of images through magazines, which helped to fix it by the reunion ofdifferent but similar works, with the aid of some editors and critics who, by theirturn, strived to name an internationally spread phenomenon which they could notthen fully understand, perhaps, for the lack of a proper historical distance.

Although Banham only mentions one Latin American work in his comprehensive,belated (for it was written a posteriori as an account, not as an announcement) andhighly controversial book on Brutalism (BANHAM, 1966) he makes an effort to

7 A complete understanding of the brutalist label and its variants can be seen at Zein(2005) and can be consulted on-line (in Portuguese) at:http://www.vitruvius.com.br/arquitextos/arq084/arq084_00.asp

8 In his thorough research of Torontos Concrete architecture of the same period here underdiscussion, Mcclelland and Stewart (2007:12-3) acknowledges the cultural amnesia aboutthat periods architecture (happens everywhere, and it seems, for the same reasons) butprefer not to use the problematic label brutalism, for them, a confuse and to looselyapplied tag and makes some considerations about the property of the name and the possibleinfluences of the Smithsons or Le Corbusiers over Canadian architects. I do agree with themthat it would be much neat to use any other label than to have to disentangle and thecomings and goings of the excessively overloaded name of Brutalism. On the order hand,that is a job one has to do, sooner or later: like many other names used in the History of artand architecture, despite its completely inappropriateness, it is already consecrated and easyto communicate (you just do know when a building can be called brutalist, even if yourenot sure of what does that mean); and the last but perhaps more important reason is that by

using the name, it is possible to perceive it as another late International Style, connectingits varied manifestations around the world and comparing their similarities and peculiarities.
http://www.vitruvius.com.br/arquitextos/arq084/arq084_00.asphttp://www.vitruvius.com.br/arquitextos/arq084/arq084_00.asp


8/10

8

include as much different examples from different places as possible. If he onlymentioned one outstanding Chilean example and do not included some Mexican orBrazilian Brutalist works, that is probably due to his possible unawareness of theirexistence, for they would perfectly fit in his broad sweeping.

The lack of an international acknowledgment of the status and importance of theBrazilian Paulista Brutalist Architecture of the 1957-1975s, pairs with a similarlacking in the internal discourses for different reasons, but with similarconsequences. This absence could keep on being disregarded as just anothermeaningless episode, if not for the fact that the existence and importance of thePaulista Brutalism must be granted, not for the sake of the historical register, butfor the sheer quality of its buildings9.

And also retaking the initial line of reasoning - because they configure the missing link between Moderna Brazilian Carioca School and Brasilia andcontemporary Brazilian architecture, that cannot be properly understand withoutbetter examining the Paulista Brutalist architecture, whose paradigms were spreadand adopted among all the regions of the country after the second half of the 1960sup to the 1970s, almost (but not quite) conforming another school and quicklydisplacing the Carioca School influence (which was, in any case, already decliningafter its previous apogee10). For better or worse, contemporary Brazilianarchitecture derives as much from the Carioca than from the Paulista trends, andperhaps, even more from the second than from the first.

Paradoxically enough, although the Pauista Brutalist architecture clearly proposed a

remarkable change, and a perhaps necessary renovation of Brazilian architecturalpanorama, its main protagonists chose, during the first decades of its consolidationand expansion, to omit their own evident dissatisfaction with its predecessors andto state their full political alliance with them a dangerous mixture of architecturaland political discourses that were fully complicated by the negative impacts of themilitary dictatorship affecting Brazil after 1964. Even if their works were in fact,although covertly, questioning the previous Brazilian Modernity achievements, theydo not feel at easy to state that, perhaps fearing one of the consequences of theirindependence, meaning, the breaking apart of a Brazilian Modern architecture

identity (as a fixed trope defined and congealed with the help of inside andabroad narratives); specially in a moment (1960-70s) when it seemed necessaryto be professionally united to confront the adverse political situation. The fact that

such an internal disciplinary crisis coincided in time with such a bad politicalmoment was a burden from which we have not yet completely recovered.

After half a century, and in the absence of the hostile political situation of thatmoment, the maintenance of a discourse holding an univocal national identity ofBrazilian Modern architecture strongly marked Brazilian architecture and architects,but is neither satisfactory nor acceptable anymore, although it keeps on being avery prevalent position in the internal debates never as a clear statement, mostly

9 The majority of them still in use and proposing several debates on its maintenance andsometimes, its transformation a situation in which their status as a high quality ModernHeritage must be assured in order to enhance their usefulness and preservation.10

In due time - after the 1980s the Paulista School would also furnish a common basisagainst which several other confronting tendencies set aside in order to grow up.


9/10

9

as a pervasive assumption, and so far, very hard to counterpoint. And it keepsimpeding the understanding about what happened after Brasilia: there is noproblem in answering this inquiry, except that the problem is the question, orbetter, the ground it stands upon.

As it shows on the commentaries above, the issue of the Brutalism, its status in theinternational panorama and inside Modern Brazilian architecture is a complexsubject with several sub issues that needs a whole book, or more, to be carefullyand more thoroughly analyzed11. The intention of this paper is not to give a fullaccount about that, but just to call attention to several interesting points around it.

As a conclusion, it is worth mentioning some of the Paulista Brutalist best worksand authors, just as a short notice12.

From around 1957 on, the Paulista Brutalism contributed to Brazilian architecturewith several important works. In the early 1950s the architects Joo BatistaVilanova Artigas (1915-1984) and Carlos Cascaldi gradually begin to use exposedconcrete structures, such as the Morumbi Stadium (1952), in So Paulo, or theOlga Baeta residence (1956), also in So Paulo. Just as Artigas, other maturearchitects of that moment started to adopt the brutalist language in their works,from the late 1950s onward: as did the architect Lina Bo Bardi (1914-1992), whendesigning MASP- Museu de Arte de So Paulo (1958/1961); Fabio Penteado(n.1928) in the headquarters of the Harmonia Club (1964); Carlos Barjas Millan(1927-1964) in the Roberto Millan residence (1960); Telsforo Cristfani (1929-2003), in the Fasano Vertical Restaurant (1964) and Hans Broos (n.1921), in the

Saint Bonifaces Parish Center (1965).

A new generation of newly graduated architects starts a career contributing to theconsolidation of the Paulista face of the brutalist trend in the end of the 1950s..Names as Paulo Mendes da Rocha (n.1928), in the Paulistano Club (1958); JoaquimGuedes (1932-2008), in the Cunha Lima residence (1959); Francisco Petracco(n.1935) and Pedro Paulo de Mello Saraiva (n.1933) in the Clube XV in Santos(1963); Paulo Bastos (n.1936), in the So Paulo Military Headquarters (1965);PPMS with Sami Bussab (n.1939) and Miguel Juliano e Silva, with the Ballroom ofthe Syria-Lebanon Club (1966); Ruy Othake (n.1938) in Tomie Ohtakes house(1966) and in the Central Telefnica Campos do Jordo (1973); Joo WalterToscano (n.1933), in the Health Resort in guas de Prata-SP (1969); among many

others.The quality and importance of these works in them and as the representatives of an

other Brazilian Modern architectural trend has not yet been properlyacknowledge. Among other causes, the subsequent discredit against the so-called

tardo-modernism architecture raised an interdiction that only from now on can berendered more ineffective.

11 See Zein & Bastos (2009, in print).12 Illustrations and/or more Information about these and other examples of the Paulista

Brutalist works of 1953-1973 period can be found at the authors research site:http://www.brutalistconnection.com
http://www.brutalistconnection.com/http://www.brutalistconnection.com/http://www.brutalistconnection.com/


10/10

10

REFERENCES

BANHAM, Reyner. New Brutalism, ethic or aesthetic? Sttutgart: Karl Kramer Verlag.COMAS, Carlos Eduardo Dais. Uma certa arquitetura moderna brasiliera;experincia a re-conhecer [in] Arquitetura Revista FAU-UFRJ, n5, 1987, p.22-35.Bruand (1981)COMAS, Carlos Eduardo Dias. 2002. Precises Brasileiras. Sobre um estado passado

da arquitetura e urbanismo modernos. Doctoral Thesis, Universit de Paris VII,Vincennes Saint-Denis.CURTIS, William. 1996. Modern Architecture since 1900. London: Phaidon.GOLDHAGEN, Sarah Williams; LEGAULT, Rjean (ed). 2002. Anxious modernisms.Experimentation in postwar architectural culture. Quebec: Canadian Centre forArchitecture / Massaschusetts Institute of Technology.MACCELLEAND, Michael; STEWART, Graeme (ed). 2007. Concrete Toronto. Aguidebook to concrete architecture from the fifties to the seventies. Toronto: CoachHouse Books and E.R.A. Architects.SEGAWA, Hugo. 1997. Arquiteturas no Brasil 1900-1990. So Paulo: Edusp.ZEIN, Ruth Verde; BASTOS, Maria Alice Junqueira. 2009 (in press).Brasil:Architectures in the second half of the 20th century. Son Paulo: Editora

Perspectiva.ZEIN, Ruth Verde; LIMA, Ana Gabriela Godinho. What do we know about Brasilia?Misleading and prejudices in canonical books. Paper presented to the VInternational Docomomo Seminar, Brasilia, 2000ZEIN, Ruth Verde. 2000 Arquitetura Brasileira, Escola Paulista e as casas de PauloMendes da Rocha. Dissertao de Mestrado, Porto Alegre: PROPAR-UFRGS.ZEIN, Ruth Verde. 2005. A arquitetura da Escola Paulista Brutalista 1953-1973.Doctoral Thesis. Porto Alegre: PROPAR-UFRGS.

zein 2009 other brazilian modernities

Documents