Today, I had the privilege of attending a lecture at the Bay Area Cultural Salon with the theme “A Chinese Renaissance: American Architect Henry Murphy and his interpretation of Traditional Chinese Architecture, 1914-1935”. The speaker was Boyuan Zhang, a Senior Associate at Robert A.M. Stern Architects (RAMSA) in New York. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture from Tsinghua University, a Master’s degree in Architecture from Yale University, and is a registered architect in the state of New York.
Architect Henry Murphy (Henry Killam Murphy, 1877-1954) was an American architect. In the first half of the 20th century, he designed campuses for several important universities in China, including Yali School, Tsinghua University, Fujian Union University, Jinling Women’s University, and Yanjing University. He also oversaw the “Capital Plan” in Nanjing for the Nationalist government and became a representative figure of the Classical Revival movement in Chinese architecture during that era.
Why did an American architect dedicate himself to reviving traditional Chinese architecture? What contributions did he make to the Chinese architectural community? After listening to the lecture, I would like to share some notes. Towards the end of this article, I will also add some of my own thoughts on Chinese architecture.
In 1914, Murphy came to China, and he left in 1935. This was a unique historical period. Let’s briefly review the historical context at that time: In 1912, the Qing Dynasty ended, and the Republic of China was established. Prior to this, during the late Qing Dynasty, there was a significant Boxer Rebellion that had caused considerable damage to the activities of Western missionaries in China. At that time, Christian missions in China decided to shift their focus towards education and invested a significant amount of effort and funds in building church schools and universities.
Commissioned by the church, and with the desire to meet the needs of Chinese society, Henry Murphy worked on a series of school and university construction projects in a “Chinese Renaissance” style.
Let’s take another look at the historical period at that time. It’s worth noting that Liang Sicheng, the first scholar to systematically study and research classical Chinese architecture, along with his wife Lin Huiyin, began their studies around 1930. Therefore, during Henry Murphy’s time in China from 1914 to 1935, there were no prior cases of Chinese classical architectural revival to reference. The requirements for campus and public building designs included larger volumes, multi-story designs, the use of modern building materials instead of traditional wood, and the need to meet thermal insulation, soundproofing, and other modern requirements.
In Zhang Boyuan’s presentation, we saw that Henry Murphy actually went through a learning curve. From his early designs for Yali School to later projects like Yanjing University (predecessor of Peking University), he became more adept at incorporating Chinese classical architectural elements into his designs. Without any prior reference or study programs for classical Chinese architecture, Henry Murphy had to think and refine on his own, deciding which Chinese elements could be incorporated and which needed adaptation. This was no simple task for a “foreigner.”
Towards the end of the lecture, the speaker, Boyuan Zhang, engaged with the audience and posed an interesting question: should the new Chinese-style architecture focus on being “form-like” or “spirit-like”? He believed that capturing the “spirit” is difficult, so starting with the “form” is necessary, as pursuing the “spirit” can easily lead to deviation.
However, I personally believe that architectural language can be summarized, and capturing the “spirit” is possible. I cited the example of I.M. Pei’s Suzhou Museum, which is a masterpiece that captures the “spirit.”
In summary, the reflection on this salon event ends here. Now, here are some of my own thoughts.
New Chinese-style architecture should not be limited to the material level. Many Chinese-style buildings cannot innovate because they fail to comprehend the essence of traditional culture. They either stack and overlay traditional elements and symbols or simply imitate them, resulting in a plethora of unattractive pseudo-antique buildings. An example of this is the Beijing West Railway Station (even the Tsinghua University’s Sizheng Shuyuan designed by RAMSA left me unsatisfied). New Chinese-style architecture should not only be material but also spiritual.
New Chinese-style architecture should discard the rigidity and heaviness of palace-style design. In reality, the younger generation of Chinese architects in residential architecture has already done a great job. They incorporate traditional elements like lanes, courtyards, courts, bridges, and walls, maintaining the essence of traditional architecture while meeting the requirements of a comfortable, convenient, and modern lifestyle. However, there are still too few examples of large public buildings, such as elegant and modern Chinese-style architectural works like the Suzhou Museum.
The aesthetic of new Chinese-style architecture is related to each one of us.
Most Chinese people might think that the topic of new Chinese-style architecture has nothing to do with them. They are not involved in the design, nor do they have the ability to influence it. But if everyone thinks this way, we will all remain ignorant about our own traditional elements and cultural essence. We should all strive to learn history and pass down our culture to the next generation.