Talk:Toward an Architecture

"Corb buildings referenced" section

What amounts to a list of figures seems unnecessary to a useful summary of the book's content and impact, especially for the space it takes up on the page. Thoughts on removing it? AttemptedEdit (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The logic and meaning of this paragraph is inscrutable

The authorship of the book was complex.

Indeed, as was apparently the authorship of this particular section. I suspect whomever wrote or transcribed this paragraph may have inadvertently switched the names around.

Le Corbusier co-owned L'Esprit Nouveau with fellow purist painter Amédée Ozenfant. They co-signed many of the original essays as "Le Corbusier-Saugnier," and Ozenfant had been a close friend of Corbusier. – Corbu and Ozenfant co-owned the magazine; essays written by the pair were signed by "Le Corbusier-Saugnier," inexplicably introducing the name "Saugnier" into the discussion; closing with a non-sequitur.

Ozenfant denied having written the book, claiming that the essays were based on conversations the two had had together about theories written by Auguste Perret and Adolf Loos. As the book became more known, their fight became more heated. – Ozenfant denies his involvement, and as the book gained notoriety, his protestations increased in pitch. Makes sense, right? The more people credit you for something you wish to reject, the more you'll complain. Simple enough to follow along with.

Here's where it all flips upside-down: Ozenfant began to claim not only more credit for authorship, but also that Le Corbusier had purposefully excluded him by dedicating the original edition to Ozenfant. Like, what? Guy who fully rejected his authorship is claiming "more credit" - more than what? Zero? Or is this line trying to say that in fact Ozzy had been claiming some credit all this time? Even more confusing is the statement that Corbu excluded Ozenfant by dedicating the book to Ozenfant - can someone more versed in contradictions and paradoxes perhaps straighten this one out into something sensible? – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is confusing. Rephrased as best I understand it, but need to find the reference to confirm. AttemptedEdit (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed the referenced text (Jean-Louis Cohen's introduction to the 2007 Goodman translation) and the text above misinterprets what Cohen says. (Also the stated reference to page 143 of the introduction is non-sensical as the intro ends on page 59.)

Cohen says that "Saugnier" was Ozenfant's mother's name and that Ozenfant suggested using the combined moniker to Corbusier (Cohen is unclear about why he did so, though writes it indicates that Corb was the principal author and Ozenfant had made possible contributions).

Cohen writes that the dedication in the first edition undercuts Ozenfant's authorship claim. This is not Ozenfant's claim, however he seems to agree in 1928 by saying that it "is not customary" for one author to dedicate a book to a co-author.

Cohen does not say that Ozenfant "claims more authorship" of the book as it gets more popular nor that he ever "denies having written the book." Rather, the authorship dispute is mostly private. Cohen implies that a cartoon Corb sends Ozenfant in 1932 amounts to an acknowledgement of Ozenfant's claim (he writes that it shows Ozenfant had "clearly reclaimed a portion of the paternity ... of the book..." (43)). Ozenfant later implies that he stepped away from claiming authorship at Corb's request. Characterizing this as becoming "more heated" because the book becomes "more known" seems over-editorialized to me.

However, Cohen refers to a 1936 claim that they shared authorship as a "rumor" on the same page. This is made more confusing by the fact that Ozenfant writes one of the first reviews of the book (it is "effusive" in Cohen's words (42)) for L'espirit nouveau, something that would assumably be a rather major conflict of interest if he had made significant contributions to it...

I have re-written this paragraph to better reflect Cohen's writing. Perhaps another source would help clear up the remaining confusion around Ozenfant's contributions. The only thing Cohen specifically mentions is Ozenfant claiming to have edited one of the photographs (8). AttemptedEdit (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, AE, your work on this section is appreciated. Your response to my comment and your rewrite of the section together address all my concerns both factual and grammatical. No notes, you nailed it :) – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 23:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)