IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

MILICA MAĐANOVIC

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices
in Architectural Education:
History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of
Architecture, 1927–1969

“Dis-moi ce que tu lis, je te dirai qui tu es,” il est vrai, mais je te connaîtrai
mieux si tu me dis ce que tu relis. (Mauriac 1959: 138)

[“Tell me what you read and I’ll tell you who you are,” is true enough, but
I would know you better if you told me what you re-read].

In architectural history, it is easy to focus on buildings and structures and, in
doing so, to overlook the influence of the written word on architectural devel-
opment—for various and, one might add, obvious reasons. The significance of
the great treatises—from Vitruvius’ De Architectura to Le Corbusier’s Vers une
Architecture—is acknowledged and widely discussed in architectural schol-
arship. But what about the numerous, less famous titles, subtly making their
contribution to the course of architectural history? Literature has played a
particularly important part in the history of institutionalised architectural ed-
ucation. It rose to prominence within the Beaux-Arts tradition. The academic
intellectual climate of the French school nurtured the specific profile of the
architects. Beaux-Arts students were well-trained academics, encouraged to as-
sume the role of a scholar in the exploration of the past. The achievements of
architectural history were condensed in treatises on composition, proportion,
symmetry, ornamentation, etc. Books became a supplement to, or, in countries
remote from Europe, a substitute for actual buildings. Furthermore, a tendency
to perceive every historical phenomenon as a unique structure shaped by specific
sets of conditions gained in strength since its emergence in the eighteenth centu-
ry. The architectural past was no exception. To fully understand the architectural
production of different époques and environments, architects needed to study
the broader socio-economic, political, and cultural context. Historiography was
their strongest ally.

The Beaux-Arts methods were systematically introduced into the Auckland
School of Architecture by Professor Cyril Knight, the first Professor of
Architecture, who took up his position in 1925 (Treep 2017: 25–31). Knight was liv-
ing in New York at the time of his appointment and his first task was to purchase
books for the architecture library. The telegram Knight received informing him
about his professorship included £100 for this purpose. Unfortunately, the list of
the titles Knight brought from New York has been lost. However, it is possible to

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

learn which books were deemed necessary for the education of architects from
the School’s annual Prospectus. These publications present valuable information
about the Auckland School, including the reading lists for individual courses,
or papers. There can be no doubt that the teachers sometimes deviated from
the officially advertised content. They would have offered their personal inter-
pretations, decided the extent to which individual books were to be used, and
suggested other titles to their students. Nonetheless, the official School prospec-
tuses documented the institutionalised intellectual climate that influenced the
formal education of young architects in Auckland for decades (see Fig. 1).

The words by the influential French writer François Mauriac were an appropri-
ate line of inspiration for this article. Exploring the titles students were—at least
officially—encouraged to read and re-read, the article is focused on the teaching
of history and theory at the Auckland School of Architecture. History and theory
courses formed the conceptual nucleus of the curriculum in the educational
tradition of the Beaux-Arts. In turn, knowledge and comprehension of the archi-
tectural past informed the teaching of design and drawing. However, a curious

Fig. 1 In the period covered by
this article, the Auckland School
of Architecture Prospectus was
redesigned six times. Above are the
cover pages for the years 1927 (a),
1944 (b), 1948 (c), 1958 (d), 1964 (e),
1967 (f ), and 1970 (g).

dichotomy developed at the Auckland School. On one hand, the residues of a
conservative Beaux-Art tradition were apparent in the recommended bibliogra-
phy and descriptions of history and theory courses until as late as 1969. On the
other, from the 1930s on, student designs were obviously influenced by modern-
ist ideas. Tracing the gradual transformation of the history and theory courses
from 1927 to 1969, the article explores the persistence of Beaux-Arts influences
at the School, and, consequently, demonstrates that the once resounding ideas
of the École des Beaux-Arts had echoes, even if increasingly faint, until well into
the twentieth century.

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

“The World-Famous System”: École des Beaux-Arts as the
Model for New Zealand

The early history of architectural education in New Zealand has been discussed
by Ann McEwan (1999, 2001) and Lucy Treep (2017). McEwan (1999, 2001) has
shown that in New Zealand, as in Britain and the United States, the study of
architecture existed for decades outside of the university context, prior to be-
coming a taught discipline. Aspiring candidates could learn their craft in the
office of a senior architect, by correspondence or—for the few who could afford
it—studying at an overseas university. However, the prosperous years of the early
twentieth century instigated changes in New Zealand’s architectural profession.
The economy was recovering from the previous decades of crisis, and the colony
became a dominion in 1907. In an atmosphere of growing national pride and gen-
eral prosperity, confidence in the future of the architectural profession gained
strength. The New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA) was established in
1905, and a three-year Diploma Course in Architecture was offered by Canterbury
College from 1914, run in conjunction with the Schools of Art and Engineering.
Determined to raise the profession to a more advanced level, architects cam-
paigned for the establishment of an architectural school in New Zealand. After
years of debate, the relentless efforts of the NZIA and individual practitioners ul-
timately bore fruit. The first New Zealand School of Architecture was officially
established at Auckland University College in 1917.

One hundred years later, in the School’s centennial history, Treep (2017) reveals
the important role that Professor Knight played in the employment of Beaux-Arts
methods during the early history of the Auckland School. His formal education
and professional experiences were deeply rooted in the French tradition. Of
Australian origin, Knight graduated with a first-class honours degree in archi-
tecture from the University of Liverpool. He broadened his understanding of
the discipline through architectural studies in Europe—mostly Paris—and the
United States. Lacking systematised architectural education, the United States
and the United Kingdom adopted the Beaux-Arts model for the development of
their tertiary-level instruction during the course of the nineteenth century. In
both countries, architectural knowledge was previously acquired through the
traditional system of apprenticeship. In contrast, the École des Beaux-Arts in
Paris developed a centralised, government-funded, and systematic education
from the middle of the seventeenth century (Drexler 1977; Egbert & Van Zanten
ca. 1980). The United States employed the Beaux-Arts model for the first time
at MIT in 1865 (Draper 1977; Noffsinger 1955). England got its first full-time ar-
chitectural programme in 1895, again based on the Beaux-Arts system, at the
University of Liverpool (Crouch 2002). Both the British and the American schools
taught the Beaux-Arts design principles and, especially at first, aimed to employ
French design tutors. However, they did not copy the programme of the École
des Beaux-Arts—rather, the content taught at the French school was adapted to
fit university teaching in the British and the American contexts.

Echoing American and English practices, Knight adopted the Beaux-Arts system
at the Auckland School. This was proudly advertised in School prospectuses:

The training in design is based upon the world-famous system adopted by
the École des Beaux Arts at Paris, which has been followed by Liverpool,
Manchester, and London University Schools of Architecture with such

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

distinguished success. It is also the system operative at the Architectural
Association School in London and most of the American Universities
(Prospectus 1931: 6).

The School of Architecture was established as a part of the developing Auckland
University College, which was undergoing an intensive expansion to meet New
Zealand’s needs for a better, more systematic education. As a result, and in
keeping with the British and American precedents, in contrast to the seemingly
laissez-fair atmosphere of the École’s ateliers, where students progressed at their
own pace, studio design instruction was integrated with the university lecture
and class systems.1

A question logically follows: Why was the Beaux-Arts method such a fitting
model for development of tertiary-level architectural curricula? Discussing
Beaux-Arts influences on the architectural profession in the United States, Joan
Draper (1977) formed some insightful conclusions, and ones that are also relevant
to the British and New Zealand experience. The standardisation of education
following the Beaux-Arts model offered solutions to two major problems. First,
the establishment of systematic rules helped overcome the rampant pluralism of
nineteenth-century architectural styles. The French school developed a precisely
defined, universal formula of historic architectural styles and a rational method
for applying it. Furthermore, the Beaux-Arts system helped the development of
specific professional abilities which would differentiate architects from other
professionals of the construction industry. This contributed to the emergence of
a specific, standardised approach to architectural design and, officially support-
ed and acknowledged by the public, institutionalised education therefore played
an important role in the professionalisation of architecture.

“Architecture Confirmed History”: The Beaux-Arts and the
Importance of History

Beaux-Arts architects approached the design process through a scholarly com-
prehension of the past. Their practice was heavily influenced by historicism.
Challenging the older Universalist conception, the historicist notions of individu-
ality and development altered the way humans perceived history (Reynolds 1999).
The historicist thinkers expressed the idea, today a default for historical scholar-
ship, that each historical phenomenon—whether a person, an event, or a complex
political structure such as a state—was unique, different from others, and shaped
by a specific set of conditions. Maintaining that the present was a part of the his-
torical stream of development, humans started conceiving of culture historically.

Architecture was traditionally deemed to be a product of “high” culture par excel-
lence. Christchurch architect Richard Harman vividly illustrated the significance
of architecture in an address given to the New Zealand Society of Artists in 1934.
He stressed that the “people of the past were judged by their architecture and
people of the future would judge those of to-day in the same way” (“Architecture
and History” 1934: 12). Architecture was an integral part of civilisation. “Races
without architecture were called barbarians, but those who built were held to be
civilised. Architecture confirmed history ...” (“Architecture and History” 1934: 12).

The intellectual climate of historicism contributed to the prestige of histor-
ical study. Gwendolyn Wright (1990) notes that history courses legitimised

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

professional training in architecture. According to Wright, professors of ar-
chitecture at universities maintained that the history curriculum lifted their
programmes above the technical schools where they were often first located:
“History gave them autonomy and legitimacy within the academic setting”
(1990: 17). Architects set off to examine the architectural production of the past,
taking into consideration the wider, sociocultural background of any particular
period. Students were encouraged to study the past not in the positivistic way of
an archaeologist, but to understand the complex circumstances significant for
the progress of human culture and their influence on forms and ornaments of
architecture. The educated—and well-argued—choice of historic styles, depend-
ent upon authoritatively generated precedents, resulted in a clearly identifiable
model for architecture that was highly regarded throughout the Western world.

The belief in the relevance of the study of the past was deeply rooted in New
Zealand architecture. Addressing the members of the Auckland Architectural
Students’ Association, the renowned architect William Gummer articulated
this belief in a speech to Auckland architects in 1915. Gummer stressed that the
purpose of historical study was comprehension, not the reproduction of “the
structures of other peoples in other lands” (1915: 294). In the same year, Dunedin
architect Leslie Coombs, in his lesson to architectural students, stressed that
modern architecture should be in accordance with modern civilisation. And
since:

… our civilization has developed from the experience of the past so our
architecture should reasonably be expected to develop. Therefore study the
history of architecture and the forms that were designed by the men who
came before us, and make full use of the ideas. I say make use of the ideas, I
do not say copy blindly the works (Coombs 1915: 199).

The Teaching of History and Theory at the Auckland School of
Architecture

The degree structure at the Auckland School of Architecture remained largely
unchanged for a period of 34 years, until 1961. Revolving around the thesis devel-
opment, the fifth and final year allowed great freedom. In contrast, the teaching
programme of the first four years demonstrated strong Beaux-Arts influenc-
es. For example, the fourth-year examination involved a typical esquisse-type
Beaux-Arts test. The students had five days to develop a design solution for the
programme to which they were introduced on the first day. An initial design con-
cept had to be presented by the end of the first day. It could be further developed
during the following four days, but the final design could not deviate from the
original sketch “in its main line of compositions” (Prospectus 1948: 39).

The French tradition and importance placed on historical study in institution-
alised education were even more evident in the first three years. The study of
the architectural past was divided into three individual courses, taught from
first- to third-year level.2 Theory of Architectural Design was offered to second-
and third-year students.3 Architectural history directly informed the first-year
Freehand Drawing paper. In the first part of the paper, the students were draw-
ing the motifs of architectural ornaments from the cast, and, in the second, from
memory. Descriptive Geometry and Sciagraphy offered in the second year in-
cluded study of the “Ionic volute” and “geometry as a basis of ornamentation”

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

(Prospectus 1948: 38). While the study of history and theory was important in the
conceptual shaping of the undergraduate programme, it did not dominate over
the timetable of lectures in comparison with the hours allocated to other courses
(see Fig. 2). For example, in comparison to Structural Mechanics, where the stu-
dents had five hours per week in the second year, every individual history and
theory paper was taught one hour weekly, at all levels of study.

Fig. 2 Timetable of lectures: 1931 (a),
1944 (b). [Prospectus (Auckland:
Auckland School of Architecture,
1931; 1944)]

The place that history and theory courses held in the School curriculum is rel-
atively clear. But who was behind them? Who were the people teaching history
and theory at the Auckland School? The annual prospectuses regularly includ-
ed a list of staff members. Interestingly, though it is possible to learn who was
teaching subjects such as Architectural Construction, Physics, or Professional
Practice and Law—and in what capacity—there is no official record of the his-
tory and theory lecturers. For some reason it was deemed unnecessary to record
this information separately. It is well known that Knight was teaching architec-
tural history for many years—his carefully prepared lecture notes, kept in the
Architecture Archive at the University of Auckland, illustrate his enthusiasm for
the subject. Additional information can be found in the passing comments in the
“Annual Letters”, written by Knight and included in the School prospectuses. For
example, an Annual Letter from 1938 noted the contributions of Arthur Marshall,
who was teaching construction and history to the second year. Imric Porsolt, a
Hungarian who trained at Prague, was employed in 1950. Julia Gatley (2017)
noted that Porsolt played an important role in the modernisation of history and
theory teaching at the School: “He invigorated this subject area with interests
that extended to modernism and also the applied arts” (50–51).

Finally, what tools did aspiring young architects have at their disposal for the
exploration of professional principles validated and legitimised by centuries of

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

experience? What were the official sources for the study of architectural history
and theory? The School prospectuses also included lists of the titles the students
were expected to read for different courses. Regardless of the individual pref-
erences of the teachers, the officially recommended bibliography records the
dominant attitude of the Auckland School. The reading lists published between
1927 and 1969 documented three phases of the Beaux-Arts influence on history
and theory teaching at the Auckland School: predominance, from 1927 to 1947;
transition, from 1948 to 1958; and then decline, from 1958 to 1969.

1927–1947

As noted earlier, the prevalence of Beaux-Arts influences was initially advertised
proudly on the first page in the School prospectuses. However, although no sig-
nificant changes were made to the curriculum in 1940, the paragraph praising the
“world-famous” French system was excluded from the prospectus documents from
that time. The paragraph was omitted following Knight’s (1937) return from his vis-
it to approximately 40 architectural schools in the United States and the United
Kingdom. In the 1938 “Annual Letter”, Knight expressed his intention to make
“many improvements” to the School curriculum as a result of the tour (Annual
Letter 1938). The outbreak of the Second World War and its aftermath interfered
with the realisation of his plans. Though there was awareness that Beaux-Arts
methods were internationally perceived as outdated, the texts recommended for
students studying architectural history and theory remained the same.

Fig. 3 A country residence: Fourth-
year diploma time sketch, six
hours, by R. Keith Land. [Prospectus
(Auckland: Auckland School of
Architecture, 1932)]

Fig. 4 A city hotel: Fourth-year
design by J. Fairbrother. [Prospectus
(Auckland: Auckland School of
Architecture, 1938)]

There was a growing dichotomy between the recommended reading and the
most successful student designs, which were also included in the School pro-
spectuses in these years (see Fig. 4). The design solutions gradually transformed
from the traditional eclectic historical approach of the late 1920s, to pristine, or-
nament-free façades from the mid-1930s onward, as students were increasingly
influenced by modernist aesthetics. The strict symmetry of the Beaux-Arts plan-
ning methodology remained in place for the designs for public buildings, while
more freedom was apparent in the planning of residential structures, such as
a design for a country residence from 1932 (see Fig. 3).4 The shift in students’

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

designs coincided with the broader changes New Zealand architecture was go-
ing through at that time. Publications, immigrants, architects returning from
overseas, and projects by the Department of Housing Construction significantly
contributed to the dissemination of modernist ideas in the late 1930s and early
1940s (Clark & Walker 2000; Gatley 2008). The dichotomy was a result of the con-
trast in the curriculum itself, which, in turn, reflected the broader professional
struggles of that period: architectural art or architectural science; historicist ec-
lecticism or modernism? On one hand, history and theory courses drew lessons
from the past, and in the spirit of Beaux-Arts tradition stressed the importance
of ornament, preaching an art of architecture. On the other, courses such as
Reinforced Concrete Construction or Sanitation and Hygiene were primarily
focused on the future, relying on contemporary science and cutting-edge tech-
nologies. A similar pattern had developed at the Liverpool School of Architecture
a decade earlier (Crouch 2002; Richmond 2001; Sharples, Powers, & Shippbottom
1996). Alongside historicist projects, Art Deco and modernist influences in-
creased from the second half of the 1920s. However, though the history of the
Liverpool School is a widely researched topic, history and theory courses have
not been studied individually so far. Therefore, it is not possible to claim that a
similar discord between the teaching of history and theory and student designs
existed at the Liverpool School in this period—this can only be assumed.

What was the teaching of history and theory like at the Auckland School of
Architecture? In the first two history courses, students learnt about the de-
velopment of architecture from Ancient History to the modern period. In
the historicist tradition, rather than discussing the architectural forms as an
abstract, aesthetic category, students were expected to obtain “a general knowl-
edge of the history of nations with reference to its influence upon architecture”
(Prospectus 1927: 13). The first-year courses surveyed Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian,
Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Early Christian, Romanesque, and Gothic architec-
ture. The second-year paper focused on Renaissance architecture in Italy, France,
and England. It also introduced modern architecture: “The tendency in modern
design” was explored with regard to “the influence and value of ancient architec-
ture” and “its effect in England, America, and the colonies” (Prospectus 1927: 14).
This was “modern” architecture as in contemporary, or of its time, rather than of
the Modern Movement.

The reading lists for both courses consisted of the conservative classic texts of
architectural history (see Fig. 5). The first-year students were to study from three
canonical texts—the latest edition of Sir Banister Fletcher’s famous A History of
Architecture (1898); History of Architecture (1909) by Alfred D. F. Hamlin, the es-
teemed American architectural historian and professor at Columbia University;
and William James Anderson and Richard Phené Spiers’ The Architecture of
Greece and Rome (1902). Fletcher’s 1898 History remained a recommended text for
longer than any other. In 1968, after 41 years, it was the last of the 1927 titles to be
removed from the history reading list. The sources for the second-year exploration
of tendencies in “modern design” remain unclear—for 21 years the official reading
lists for the second-year history paper consisted solely of traditionalist titles on the
Renaissance (Anderson 1898; Blomfield 1900; Gromort 1922; Ward 1911).

The content of the third-year history paper clearly demonstrated the School’s af-
filiation with the Beaux-Arts system. It covered architectural history from early
Egyptian to late Renaissance, “with special attention to architectural ornament

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

of each period” (Prospectus 1927: 14). Students also learnt about “sculpture, paint-
ing, ceramics and other methods practiced for decorative purposes” (Prospectus
1927: 14). Stressing the relevance of ornament and decoration in the best Beaux-
Arts manner, the third-year paper strongly encouraged the discussion of
architecture as an artistic category. The name of the paper itself was changed
to History of Decoration in 1931. It was returned to History of Architecture, Part
III almost a quarter of the century later, in 1955. Interestingly, the same year
the name of the paper was first altered, “tendencies in modern decoration”
(Prospectus 1931: 19) were added to the scope of the study, clearly showing the im-
portant place ornament held in the School’s design methodology.

Students were encouraged to read about architectural ornament in the tradi-
tional titles—the extensive Styles of Ornament (1906), by the German author
Alexander Speltz; the two influential volumes by Alfred Hamlin (1916); and the
sections from Fletcher’s History (1898). The third-year history paper was the
most progressive of the three. In 1939 it was the first paper to include a book
by a female author—Art Through the Ages (1936 [1926]), by the distinguished
American art historian, Helen Gardner.5 Furthermore, in 1943, Art and Industry
(1934) by Herbert Read and Nikolaus Pevsner’s Pioneers of Modern Design (1936)
introduced the modernist perspective in the third-year history curriculum.

Heavily influenced by the Beaux-Arts design methodology, the first-year theory
paper focused on the general principles of composition, proportion, scale, and
unity. The students were instructed in the laws of contrast, composition of mass-
es, and character in design. Particular emphasis was placed on the “composition
of plan, relation between plan, elevation and section” (Prospectus 1927: 17). Then,
in the second year, planning was explored in greater detail. Special attention was
given to the form of masses, wall treatment, and types of façades.

Fig. 5 List of recommended titles,
1931. [Prospectus (Auckland:
Auckland School of Architecture,
1931)]

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

For a period of 20 years, the students’ understanding of architectural theory
was developed—at least, officially—under the influence of the seminal works
from the Beaux-Arts tradition. Principles of Architectural Composition (1924) by
Howard Robertson was the first title on the list. Robertson accepted modernist
ideas during the course of his career and in this very book raised the question of
the appropriate architectural expression for modern buildings. However, when
first published in 1924, the title considered the problems of unity, scale, compo-
sition, and architectural character from a Beaux-Arts perspective. A memento
of French design methods in architectural education, for 40 years Robertson’s
Principles (1924) remained the official reference for theory courses at the
Auckland School.

Students were also encouraged to read more traditional titles, such as Theory and
Elements of Architecture (1926) by Atkinson and Bagenal, as well as the famous
Éléments (1910) by the distinguished Beaux-Arts Professor Julien Gaudet. Finally,
Architectural Composition (1923) by the American architect Nathaniel Curtis,
the well-known survey examining the principles and practical applications of
scale, balance, proportion, and symmetry, was included in 1928, and would re-
main on the list until 1965. The list of references for the second year of Theory
of Architectural Design did not differ significantly from the first. It included the
classic Beaux-Arts references—Gaudet’s Éléments (1910), along with two titles on
architectural composition by the American authors Curtis (1923) and John Van
Pelt (1930).

1948–1958

Reflecting the shifting—and conflicting—attitudes of the period, the reading
lists for the history and theory courses changed in 1948. Though the Beaux-
Arts titles—and influences—remained, from this year forward, a modernising
tendency gradually gained in strength (McCarthy 2010). The change in history
and theory teaching in 1948 followed a very particular series of events, outlined
by Gatley (2017) in her centennial chapter on the post-World War II years at the
Auckland School. In 1946, a group of second-year architectural students pre-
pared a manifesto titled On the Necessity of Architecture and published the first
issue of a magazine, Planning (Gatley 2010). The group consisted of young men
and women, who were knowledgeable about modernism and increasingly dis-
gruntled with the standard of education they were receiving. The next year saw
student displeasure with the School’s decision to appoint Charles Light, a con-
servative Beaux-Arts acolyte, for the Chair of Architecture in the area of design
(Gatley 2017). Some would have preferred the appointment of another of the
applicants, Ernst Plischke, an Austrian émigré and a well-known modernist ar-
chitect who had arrived in New Zealand in 1939.

The situation intensified in 1948, when the Architectural Students’ Society or-
ganised an Extraordinary Meeting which culminated in a vote of no confidence
in the School’s studio programme (Gatley 2017). The students wrote a report on
the functioning of the School and submitted it to the College Council, demand-
ing change. Among other issues, they complained about the extent to which the
history and theory courses focused on past architectural styles. Instead, they
wanted to learn about current architectural developments, and, more specifi-
cally, about modernism. Their vision for a restructured Bachelor of Architecture

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

included a revised history course, one surveying the period from the industrial
revolution to the Modern Movement. The School rejected the majority of the stu-
dent suggestions. The official response regarding the history and theory teaching
was uncompromising:

The treatment of History and Theory in this School as to both subject matter
and method is in general accordance with that in University Schools of
Architecture in England. The statutes cover the development of history
and theory from ancient times to the present day. The subjects are not, as
some students believe they should be, devoted in the main to recent work
(as in the case of Studio work) but endeavour to promote a knowledge of the
development of the cultures of different races concerned in the evolution of
European civilization. In our view this approach is necessary to an under-
standing of present day architecture.6

However, in spite of the resolute official attitude of the School, changes were
introduced to the history and theory programme (see Fig. 6). The descriptions
of the courses remained the same, but the 1948 reading lists demonstrate a re-
sponse to student requests. The theory courses were significantly altered. In the
first-year paper, the modernist bible Towards a New Architecture (Le Corbusier
1927) and the influential Space, Time and Architecture (Giedion 1941), replaced
Curtis’ and Gaudet’s classic references. The same year, a number of lesser
known progressive titles were introduced to the first-year reading list (Faulkner,
Ziegfeld, & Hill ca. 1949; Leathart 1940; Yorke & Penn 1939). The Beaux-Arts holy
trinity of Curtis (1923), Van Pelt (1930), and Gaudet (1910) was off the list for the
second-year theory paper, never to return; from 1949, the reference list was com-
pletely modernist.

Fig. 6 List of recommended titles,
1948. [Prospectus (Auckland:
Auckland School of Architecture,
1948)]

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

In comparison, the teaching of history was transformed at a slower pace. For ex-
ample, the reading list for the first-year history of architecture paper changed
for the first—and only—time in 1953, when An Outline of European Architecture
(Pevsner 1948) was included. The year 1948 brought the first modernist title to
second-year history—Modern Building (Behrendt 1937). Reflecting the dualism
of Beaux-Arts and modernist approaches, two quite different books were add-
ed to second-year history in 1950—Pevsner’s An Outline (1948) and Hamlin’s
History of Architecture (1909). The third-year history paper changed most dras-
tically. Technics and Civilization (Mumford 2010) was added in 1948, followed
by a number of other modernist and interdisciplinary titles in subsequent years
(Childe 1964; Pevsner 1948; Summerson 1949). Interestingly, the list for the third-
year history paper was excluded from the 1957 Prospectus, with an explanation
that “the field of study in this subject is too wide to be covered by a list of some
half dozen books” (Prospectus 1957: 14).

From this point on, the teaching of history and theory at the Auckland School
started catching up with international practices. However, unlike other courses,
it remained completely exclusive of certain topics in the period covered by this
article. For example, as a response to local needs, the study of earthquake-resist-
ant buildings and the official New Zealand building regulations was introduced
in the paper on reinforced concrete construction as early as 1941 (Prospectus
1941: 14). Furthermore, the post-World War II period witnessed growing demands
and efforts to develop a specific, New Zealand architecture. The result was a di-
verse architectural production since the late 1940s, with a distinguished current
of New Zealand modernism (Gatley 2010). In contrast, as far as the history and
theory courses were concerned, New Zealand’s own architectural past did not ex-
ist. References exploring the local architectural achievements were not—at least
officially—included in the period covered by this article.

1958–1969

From 1958, the Prospectus no longer presented the reference lists by courses and
year levels. Instead, it consolidated them into the different areas of study (see Fig.
7). Traditional titles, such as Fletcher’s History (1898) and The Art of Architecture
(1938) by Richardson and Corfiato were still recommended. However, the follow-
ing 10 years saw a gradual shift from general overviews of architectural history
towards more specific research topics. Outdated titles like Ward’s 1911 book on the
French Renaissance and Hamlin’s History (1909) were replaced (in 1958 and 1961
respectively) with more recent studies (Blunt 1999; Frankfort 1954; Hitchcock
1968). The 1960s prospectuses illustrated a humanist interest in broadening the
understanding of architecture. The teaching of history was enriched with titles
from other disciplines, most notably by major studies from the discipline of art
history (Burckhardt 1945; Gombrich 1995; Wittkower 1959).

The merged theory list highlighted the contrast between the conservative Beaux-
Arts tradition and modernising efforts. Contrary to the generally progressive
attitudes of this period, The Architecture of Humanism (1914) by Geoffrey Scott
was added in 1958. In this famous early twentieth-century treatise, Scott attempt-
ed to formulate the main principles of architectural classicism. In contrast, the
introduction of titles such as Contemporary Structure in Architecture (Michaels
1950) attests to a shift to a more scientific design methodology. Similarly to the

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

history courses, a number of books added to the theory reading list during the
1960s reflected the tendency to explore and experience architecture from an in-
terdisciplinary perspective (Arnheim 2004; Kepes 1944; Rasmussen 1964).

Coinciding with the retirement of older staff members—starting with Professor
Knight in 1958—the sixth decade of the twentieth century witnessed the end of
Beaux-Arts influences at the Auckland School of Architecture. As illustrated by
the best student work published in the prospectuses, Beaux-Arts aesthetics were
long forgotten by this time. However, French academic teaching and design
methods persisted. The final countdown for the Beaux-Arts was signalled in 1961,
when the five-day esquisse-type test was deleted from the fourth-year studio
(Gatley 2017). The same year significant changes were made to the history curric-
ulum. Starting with 1961, architectural history at the School was divided into two
courses, taught at the first- and the third-year levels.

In the following years, the titles in the Beaux-Arts tradition were gradually ex-
cluded from the theory teaching. Curtis’ Architectural Composition (1923) was
removed in 1965, and Robertson’s Principles of Architectural Composition (1924)
and Scott’s The Architecture of Humanism (1914) were recommended for the last
time in 1966. In 1967, 40 years after the Auckland School of Architecture printed
its first Prospectus, the reading lists excluded all of the major works in the tradi-
tion of the Beaux-Arts. However, the echoes of the Beaux-Arts principles lingered
for two more years. The sharp contrast between the contemporary design meth-
odology and traditionalist principles remained apparent in the description of
Theory of Architectural Design I. The functionalist approach to architecture was
merged with a humanist “man as measure” ideal, and taught alongside the char-
acter-defining Beaux-Arts qualities of unity, rhythm, and scale (Prospectus 1969:
11). The 1970 Prospectus marked the end of an era. Completely redesigned, it was
the first booklet devoid of even a faintest reference to the École des Beaux-Arts.

Fig. 7 List of recommended titles,
1958. [Prospectus (Auckland:
Auckland School of Architecture,
1958)]

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

Conclusion

To return to Mauriac’s words, the students at the Auckland School of Architecture
were re-reading the seminal titles of the Beaux-Arts tradition in the period cov-
ered by this article. History and theory courses remained the main carriers of
Beaux-Arts influences, informing design-related courses for decades. However,
they were in contrast with the actual student designs, and essentially detached
from the practically oriented courses. The most successful student work pub-
lished in the annual School prospectuses demonstrates that the aesthetics of the
historicist eclecticism were abandoned from the mid-1930s. The transition from
traditionalist to modernist architectural forms was gradual, similar to that at the
Liverpool School. Typically for the remoteness of New Zealand, it occurred with
a decennial delay—since the mid-1930s. Courses such as Structural Mechanics,
Reinforced Concrete Construction, and Professional Practice and Building Law
were up to date with the most recent findings and closely related to practice in
New Zealand. After all, architecture remains a niche profession in New Zealand,
and the School attempts to prepare its students for it. The student designs and
the majority of the curriculum show that, in general, the training at the Auckland
School did not lag behind architectural practice in New Zealand.

Nonetheless, the prospectuses printed between 1927 and 1969 record the
persisting Beaux-Arts practices at the Auckland School. The modernising aspi-
rations of the late 1930s were interrupted by the outbreak of the Second World
War and its consequences. In the pre-war period, following his visit to various
architectural schools in the United States and the United Kingdom, Knight an-
nounced that there would be curriculum change and thus showed awareness that
the teaching at the Auckland School needed to be brought up to date with inter-
national practices. But in the immediate post-war years, the leadership at the
School took a rather conservative stand. They responded slowly to the mid-cen-
tury modernising demands of the majority of students and some of the staff. The
drastic increase of student numbers after the war made securing the sufficient
funds for additional staff and adequate teaching spaces a priority. Under the cir-
cumstances, revaluation of the curriculum was considered less pressing. Perhaps
the most telling choice made in the years following the war was the decision to
employ Charles Light as the Professor of Design in 1947. The decision to hire a
conservative Beaux-Arts acolyte, instead of a more progressive architect, should
be seen both as a symptom of broader circumstances responsible for, and as a
contributing factor towards, the slower modernisation of the Auckland School.

Although 1948 marked a beginning of the modernisation of the history and the-
ory curriculum, the canonical Beaux-Arts texts continued—at least officially—to
serve as valid references for two more decades. Consequently, the teaching of
history and theory became anachronistic. The failure to adapt in a timely man-
ner to the altered circumstances of the post-war period caused dissatisfaction
and had far-reaching consequences. This can be seen as the moment when his-
tory and theory courses acquired the status they still have among students, who
often struggle to comprehend their relevance to their primary aspirations in con-
temporary design.

However faint, the Beaux-Arts rhetoric was still present at the Auckland School
of Architecture as late as 1969. Did this mean the School was producing Beaux-
Arts architects in the late 1960s? Certainly not. However, it might have meant

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

two things. First, that there was someone in a leadership position convinced of
the relevance of the French experience for contemporary architectural educa-
tion. Furthermore, the ideas the students were reading about—the principles of
composition, symmetry, proportion, and the idea of an architectural art—must,
unavoidably, have left some traces. It would be interesting to re-examine the
works of the prominent, progressive New Zealand architects who graduated in
the 1950s and 1960s. Future scholarship might yet determine that it contains
echoes off their Beaux-Arts influenced education.

ENDNOTES

1 The system of student-run
ateliers did exist in Auckland,
since the Architectural Students’
Association had established it in
1914 (Bassett 2011).
2 Annual prospectuses for the
Auckland School of Architecture
published between 1927 and
1969.
3 Between 1927 and 1931, theory
was taught in the third and
the fourth years. From 1931
onward, the theory papers were
introduced earlier, in the second
and the third years.
4 Student design published in the
1932 Prospectus.
5 Influencing art education in the
United States, Gardner’s book
remained a standard textbook
at the American schools and
universities for decades (Kader
2000).
6 A typed copy of the original
“Report of the Faculty of
Architecture”, March 31, 1949.
Auckland University College
Council Minutes, 1949, Vol. 1, pp.
333–334. A copy is available at
C. R. Knight Papers, Architecture
Archive, the University of
Auckland Library.

REFERENCES

Anderson, W. (1898). The
architecture of the Renaissance
in Italy: A general view for the use
of students and others. London,
New York: B.T. Batsford, Charles
Scribner’s Sons.

Anderson, W., & Spiers, R. P.
(1902). The architecture of
Greece and Rome: A sketch of
its historic development. London:
Batsford.

Annual letter in Prospectus.
(1938). Auckland: School of
Architecture, University of New
Zealand.

Anonym. (1934, June 11).
Architecture and history:
Development of an ancient
architecture, Press, 70(21187), 12.

Arnheim, R. (2004). Art and visual
perception: A psychology of the
creative eye. Berkeley: University
of California Press.

Atkinson, R., & Bagenal, H.
(1926). Theory and elements of
architecture. London: Ernest
Benn.

Bassett, D. (2011). The Beaux-
Arts method in New Zealand.
In Christine McCarthy (Ed.),
Good architecture should not
be a plaything: New Zealand
architecture in the 1920s (p. 20).
Wellington: Centre for Building
Performance Research, Victoria
University of Wellington.

Behrendt, W. (1937). Modern
building: Its nature, problems, and

forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and Co.

Blomfield, R. (1900). A short
history of Renaissance
architecture in England
1500–1800. London: George Bell
and Sons.

Blunt, A. (1999). Art and
architecture in France, 1500–
1700. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Burckhardt, J. (1945). The
civilization of the Renaissance in
Italy. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Childe, G. (1964). What happened
in history. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.

Clark, J., & Walker, P. (2000).
Looking for the local: Architecture
and New Zealand modern.
Wellington: Victoria University
Press.

Coombs, L. (1915, August 1). A
lesson on design to students
of architecture. New Zealand
Building Progress, 10(12), 399.

Crouch, C. (2002). Design culture
in Liverpool 1880–1914: The
origins of the Liverpool School of
Architecture. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.

Curtis, N. (1923). Architectural
composition. Cleveland: J. H.
Jansen.

Draper, J. (1977). The Ecole des
Beaux-Arts and the architectural
profession in the United States:
The case of John Galen Howard.
In Spiro Kostof (Ed.), The
architect: Chapters in the history

of the profession (pp. 209–238).
New York: Oxford University
Press.

Drexler, A. (1977). The
architecture of the Ecole des
Beaux-Arts [Exhibition catalogue].
London: Secker & Warburg.

Egbert, D., & Van Zanten, D. (ca.
1980). The beaux-arts tradition in
French architecture. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.

Faulkner, R., Ziegfeld, E., & Hill,
G. (ca. 1949). Art today: An
introduction to the fine and
functional arts. New York: H. Holt.

Fletcher, B. (1898). A history of
architecture on the comparative
method: For students, craftsmen
and amateurs. London: Batsford.

Frankfort, H. (1954). The art and
architecture of the ancient orient.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gardner, H. (1936 [1926]). Art
through the ages. Belmont:
Thomson, Wadsworth.

Gatley, J. (Ed.). (2008). Long
live the modern: New Zealand’s
new architecture, 1904–1984.
Auckland: Auckland University
Press.

Gatley, J. (2010). Who was who
in the Group? In J. Gatley (Ed.),
Group Architects: Towards a New
Zealand architecture (pp. 29–33).
Auckland: Auckland University
Press.

Gatley, J. (2017). After Knight
comes Light (and Toy): The
modernising years. In J. Gatley
& L. Treep (Eds.), The Auckland
School: 100 years of architecture

Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in Architectural Education: History and Theory Teaching
at the Auckland School of Architecture, 1927–1969

F R O M B E AU X- A R T S T O B I M

IN
T

E
R

S
T

IC
E

S
A

U
C

K
L

A
N

D
S

C
H

O
O

L
C

E
N

T
E

N
A

R
Y

S
P

E
C

IA
L

I
S

S
U

and planning (pp. 40–74).
Auckland: School of Architecture
and Planning, University of
Auckland.

Gaudet, G. (1910). Éléments et
théorie de l’architecture. Paris:
Librairie de la construction
modern.

Giedion, S. (1941). Space, time and
architecture: The growth of a new
tradition. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Gombrich, E. (1995). The story of
art. London: Phaidon Press.

Gromort, G. (1922). Italian
Renaissance architecture.
London: John Tiranti.

Gummer, W. (1915, May 1). The
study of architecture, New
Zealand Building Progress, 10(9),
293–298.

Hamlin, A. D. F. (1909). History of
architecture. New York: Green
Longmans.

Hamlin, A. D. F. (1916). A history
of ornament: Renaissance and
modern. New York: The Century Co.

Hitchcock, H. R. (1968).
Architecture: 19th and 20th
centuries. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.

Kader, K. (2000). The bible of art
history: Gardner’s art through the
ages, Studies in Art Education,
41(2), 164–177.

Kepes, G. (1944). Language of
vision. Chicago: P. Theobald.

Knight, C. (1937). Architectural
education in the British Empire:
A report. Auckland University
College Faculty of Architecture,
Auckland.

Leathart, J. (1940). Style in
architecture. London, Toronto:
Thomas Nelson & Sons.

Le Corbusier. (1927). Towards
a new architecture. New York:
Brewer, Warren & Putnam. First
published in French in 1923, under
the title Vers une architecture.

Mauriac, F. (1959). Mémoires
intérieurs. Paris: Flammarion.

McCarthy, C. (2010). The roaring
forties: Reforming architectural
education. In J. Gatley (Ed.),
Group Architects: Towards a New
Zealand architecture (pp. 29–33).
Auckland: Auckland University
Press.

McEwan, A. (1999). Learning by
example: Architectural education

in New Zealand before 1940.
Fabrications: The Journal of
the Society of Architectural
Historians, Australia and New
Zealand, 9, 1–16.

McEwan, A. (2001). An “American
dream” in the “England of the
Pacific”: American influences on
New Zealand architecture, 1840–
1940 (Unpublished Thesis for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in Art History). University of
Canterbury, Christchurch.

Michaels, L. (1950).
Contemporary structure in
architecture. New York: Reinhold.

Mumford, L. (2010). Technics and
civilization. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Noffsinger, J. P. (1955). The
influence of the Ecole des Beaux-
Arts on the architects of the
United States [Doctoral thesis].
Washington, D.C., USA: The
Catholic University of America
Press.

Pevsner, N. (1936). Pioneers of
modern design. London: Faber &
Faber.

Pevsner, N. (1948). An outline of
European architecture. London:
J. Murray.

Prospectus. (1927). Auckland:
School of Architecture, University
of New Zealand.

Prospectus. (1931). Auckland:
School of Architecture, University
of New Zealand.

Prospectus. (1941). Auckland:
School of Architecture, University
of New Zealand.

Prospectus. (1948). Auckland:
School of Architecture, University
of New Zealand.

Prospectus. (1957). Auckland:
School of Architecture, University
of New Zealand.

Prospectus. (1969). Auckland:
School of Architecture, University
of New Zealand.

Rasmussen, S. (1964).
Experiencing architecture.
London: Chapman & Hall.

Read, H. (1934). Art and industry:
The principles of industrial
design. London: Faber and Faber.

Reynolds, A. (1999). What is
historicism? International Studies
in the Philosophy of Science,
13(3), 275–287.

Richardson, A., & Corfiato, H.
(1938). The art of architecture.
London: English University Press.

Richmond, P. (2001). Marketing
modernisms: The architecture
and influence of Charles Reilly.
Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press.

Robertson, H. (1924). The
principles of architectural
composition. London:
Architectural Press.

Scott, G. (1914). The architecture
of humanism: A study in the
history of taste. Edinburgh:
University Press.

Sharples, J., Powers, A., &
Shippbottom, M. (1996). Charles
Reilly and the Liverpool School
of Architecture [Exhibition
catalogue]. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.

Speltz, A. (1906). Styles of
ornament. New York: Grosset &
Dunlap.

Summerson, J. N. (1949).
Heavenly mansions: And other
essays on architecture. London:
Cresset.

Treep, L. (2017). “A school of
architecture for the Dominion”:
The first years. In J. Gatley &
L. Treep (Eds.), The Auckland
School: 100 years of architecture
and planning (pp. 14–39).
Auckland: School of Architecture
and Planning, University of
Auckland.

Van Pelt, J. (1930). The essentials
of composition as applied to art.
New York: The Macmillan Co.

Ward, W. H. (1911). The
architecture of the Renaissance in
France: A history of the evolution
of the arts of building, decoration
and garden design under
classical influence from 1495 to
1830. London: Batsford.

Wittkower, R. (1959). Art and
architecture in Italy, 1600–1750.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Wright, G. (1990). History for
architects. In G. Wright & J.
Parks (Eds.), The history of
history in American schools of
architecture, 1865–1975 (p. 17).
New York: Temple Hoyne Buell
Center for the Study of American
Architecture.

Yorke, F. R. S., & Penn, C. (1939).
A key to modern architecture.
London, Glasgow: Blackie and Son.