Page 130 - Libro Max Cetto

The Story of a Book. Modern Architecture in Mexico

garde and having worked briefly in the United States. These negotiations reveal the German
image of Mexican architecture as well as the image the author wanted to project. Finally, a
critical interpretation of the author’s discourse is presented: his way of understanding the
history and theory of architecture, the authors on which it is based and his fears and hopes
for the future. Despite its importance, Cetto’s book has been little studied by Mexican
historians and critics, although it was surely well known at the time. In its introductory
text –and more subtly in the short paragraphs that accompany the photographic section–
we find an original historical narrative of our country’s architecture and a firm theoretical
stance. Despite offering keys to understanding this complex historical moment from a
different point of view –away from nationalistic and heroic interpretations– historians
have not taken advantage of it to construct critical narratives of our exhausted chronicles of
the twentieth century.

The World Needs a Mexico Book

Unlike other classic books of modern architecture (such as, for instance, some by Leonardo
Benévolo, or the one by Israel Katzman in the Mexican context), Modern Architecture in
Mexico was not commissioned by an editor. It was the author himself who proposed it to
several publishing houses, even without yet having the material that would make up the
publication –that is, there were no photographs, texts or even the basic structure. In late
1955 and early 1956, Cetto wrote to several publishers to offer a book project, but without
showing them his manuscript or a mockup.
The architecture of the Modern Movement was undergoing a period of valuation and
reflection throughout the world after the Second World War. It is then when the histories
of modern architecture began to be widely written. This critical way of seeing the archi-
tecture of that moment was shared by several authors, including Max Cetto himself, who
explained it in his book in his own words:

[...] It is my present belief, however, that our new buildings, particularly those from the
postwar period, share both the virtues and the vices of international architecture on
other continents, the reason being that today we have all reached the same cul-de-sac.
A sober appraisal of the situation and a careful stock-taking may help us to escape from
the impasse. For this reason, we should not turn a deaf ear to the disquieting warnings
of Sibyl Moholy-Nagy and the teachings of a Bruno Zevi, but find the leisure in the
midst of our busy activities to classify our achievements and to assess their ability to
withstand the test of time. 4

This is perhaps one of the goals of the book. We can recognize Cetto as a reader of Zevi,
as well as of other authors, but also one who forged his own interpretation. As he himself
states, “many others have felt called upon [...] all of them willing to teach us in their way,
how to look at architecture. All these approaches are justified, yet all are wrong if they are
isolated and aim to force such an infinitely complex entity as architecture into a simple
theory.” 5

4 Max Cetto, Modern Architecture in Mexico./Arquitectura moderna en México, 10. The mention of Sibyl-Moholy Nagy
surely refers to the articles she wrote in 1953 in which she negatively reviewed University City in terms of verticality,
treatment of sunlight, proportions, formal diversity and excessive decoration. See Sibyl-Moholy Nagy, “Mexican Critique,”
Progressive Architecture 34 (November 1953), 109-175. As for his mention of Zevi, Cetto, in addition to his books, prob-
ably referred to his criticism of the exhibition 4000 Years of Mexican Architecture. See Bruno Zevi, “Grotessco Messicano,”
L´architettura-Chronache e Storia, supplement of LʼEspresso, December 29, 1957.

5 Max Cetto, Modern Architecture in Mexico, 10.

130