LUIS BARRAGAN

STUDIO HOUSE: 1948

The Shaping of Sanctuary

By Dolores Bender-Graves
 In light of the time in which Luis Barragan came into his own as an architect, it is
interesting to note how selective he was in his application of the functionalist/modernist
ideal. His selectivity was due to a number of reasons, one of which was the strong
nationalistic and cultural focus in Mexico at the time. The strong and active architectural
and artistic movement was lead but such strong artistic figures as Frida Kahlo and Diego
Rivera who were friends of Barragans and for whom he built adjoining homes. To this
group of intellectuals the wholesale adoption of the new European/American modernist
esthetic was looked upon as the equivalent of architectural colonialism. A statement by
Churchill (and David Orr) which pronounced “We are shaped by our buildings and our
landscape” underscores the long held awareness of the connection between the built
environment and cultural identity. At this time, 1920 and 30s, Mexico was working hard to
re-establish its pre-colonial heritage.

Barragans primary influences were created during his childhood. He grew up on a large
traditional Mexican ranch with its configuration of a central court yard encircled by ranch
buildings and in Guadalajara with courtyards enclosed by high walls and wide entrances.
This inwardly focused approach translated very strongly into his Studio House in Mexico
City. High garden and court yard walls block all views to the outside, capturing light and
creating deep, cool shadows. This is in direct
contrast the the typical modernist approach used
by Neutra and Reyner Banham, who epitomized
the ideal expression of modernist space to be
the Farnsworth house by Mies van der Rohe.
Although Neutra became a close personal friend,
Barragan could not possibly envision opening up
his dwelling in such a way. He felt such open
structures left a person too exposed and
unprotected. He once stated “I think closed in
spaces give you a feeling of tranquility”. Image 1

For Barragan, the outer shell of the structure was simply an

exterior surface through which light was selectively allowed
to slip through to the interior. If fact, the outward facing
facade tells nothing of the interior space and almost seems
to discourage approach. Also, unlike many modernist
buildings which were created with ambiguous spacial edge

Image 2
 conditions which were neither interior nor exterior, Barragans focus was strictly and simply
to the interior. The only large opening within the structure is on the inside and focused an
internal garden, well hidden from any external gaze.

Another strong influence on Barragans work was his religious

upbringing. Religious festivals and rituals during his youth and the
religiously conservative circle to whom his wealthy family belonged
led him to an ongoing fascination with cloisters and monasteries.
This contributed to a strong spiritual life and a connection to forms
of architecture he emotionally grew to feel at peace in. In his own
home, the esthetic of the monastery, or retreat, helped create
spaces for quiet meditation. Thick walls, thin shafts of light and
deep shadows exist throughout the home. When light pierced or
filtered through a wall or ceiling opening, it
would often be used to underscore the wall
thickness. Simple finishes and furnishings
reference a simple lifestyle and a desire to
create spaces for meditation and
Image 3
thoughtfulness. The overall finish could
have easily been considered spare but
somehow is the opposite: rich, warm and welcoming. As
Norberg-Schulz would state it, Barragan “identifying himself with
the environment”. Unlike the modernist machine for living, which
placed function above all else, Barragan
placed emotional essence and connection
as primary. This ideal state, a resonance
between occupant and dwelling, was a
Image 4
goal not only of Barragan, but also of
Heidegger, and Norberg-Schulz who
stated “dwelling means to be at peace in a protected place”.

Although an admirer of LeCorbusier and other modernists,

Barragans division of space was inspired less by the flat Cartesian
grid and more by Loos’ stacking and overlapping of cubic spaces
of variable heights. This was evident in his design process as he
would often work with cardboard models and modify them over

Image 6
long periods in order to fully understand the spacial implications and lighting effects.

Barragan treated light as an overarching

determinator of the character of a space, similar to
how Christian Norberg-Schulz viewed the role of
light. In the Studio House Barragan shaped,
bounced, filtered and screened light to highlight
materials, create deeps shadow or light specific
precious or sacred objects. He treated light as a
tool to be shaped and sculpted.

If Barragan’s work were

viewed from the point of Image 5
view of Foucault, who
considered militarized space as one
which could easily be observed and/or
judged, Studio House could be defined
as the opposite of militarized space.
Barragan seemed to go out of his way
to block any observation from the
outside through the creation of an
almost blank, enigmatic facade. The
interior is divided into small, intimate
and private spaces, blocking views
from most directions, even within the
Image 7
structure.

Barragan added colour as a final step in his process and used it

to make space recede or leap forward, to induce calm or energy,
transform light or create pattern. Even though this was his final Image 8
step, he would often spend large amounts of time making
selections, moving large panels of colour around and watching them through different
times of the day and even into different seasons. Through his efforts, colour became an
integral part of the essence or character of each space and an part the architecture rather
then simply a decorative effect.
If considering the space from the point of view of smooth vs striated space (Deleuze and
Guattari), any set space such as this has to be considered fully striated despite the
wandering nature of the plans and elevations. Even an individuals paths within this space
would be very limited. With the use of thick walls and specific openings used for the
purpose of shaping light, adaptation or random change of any kind would be difficult to
inject into this structure. A primary spacial essence Barragan was working in this structure
was one of solidity, stability and restful, unchanging, permanence, and making it
changeable would only be counterproductive to the character of the home.
Bibliography:

Orr D., (2007). “Architecture, Ecological Design, and Human Ecology,” in K. Tanzer and R.
Longorie, eds., The Green Braid, 15-33

Banham R., (1975). “Space and Power,” in Age of the Masters, 49-62

Heidegger M., (1992). “Building Dwelling Thinking”, in D.F. Krell, ed. Martin Heidegger
Basic Writings, 344-363

Norberg-Schultz C., (1994). “The Phenomenon of Place”, in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a
New Agenda for Architecture, 414-428

McDonough T., (2004). “Situationist Space”, in T. McDonough, ed., Guy Debord and the
Situationist International, 2004, 241-263

Foucault M., (1975). ”Meaning of Correct Training & Panopticism,” in Discipline and Punish,
25 pages

Deleuze G., & Guattari R., (1987). “1440: The Smooth and the Striated,” in A Thousand
Plateaus, 474-500

Pauly D., (2002). Barragan: Space and Shadow, Walls and Colour. BertelsmannSpringer
Publishing Group, Basel Switzerland,

Martinez A.R., (1996). Luis Barragan: Mexico’s Modern Master, 1902-1988, The Monacelli
Press, New York, New York

Zanco, F., (2001). Luis Barragan: The Quiet Revolution, Skira Editore S.p.A., Milano Italy

Images:

Cover, Images 2,4,5,8 : Pauly D., (2002). Barragan: Space and Shadow, Walls and Colour.
BertelsmannSpringer Publishing Group, Basel Switzerland

Images 1,2 : Flickr blog rrranch’s photostream

Images 6,7 : http://www.casaluisbarragan.org/