Rediscovering I. M. Pei

I. M. Pei: Life Is Architecture is the first major exhibition to present a comprehensive look at the life and work of the visionary architect Ieoh Ming (I. M.) Pei. This multi-year effort undertaken by M+ Curator of Design and Architecture and co-curator of the exhibition Shirley Surya, among others, comprised extensive archival research and the collection of oral histories. We had the opportunity to speak with Shirley about her journey and what she discovered about Pei along the way.

What aspects of Pei did you delight in discovering from the materials you came across and chose to present in the exhibition?

While I did not meet Mr. Pei, my knowledge of him is largely gleaned from his writings, archival and video documentation of his life and projects, oral histories of those who worked with him, and my visits to 15 buildings Mr. Pei designed, as well as process drawings and models we’ve loaned from various institutions. One of the objects in the exhibition that I always like to point out is the model of the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art (1968–1973) at Cornell University. I always ask visitors if they notice a boxy structure with a large window that cantilevers out above the Fall Creek Gorge. A sectional drawing of the museum building we found earlier indicated a long subterranean passage that extends from an underground lecture hall, a ‘Japanese Garden’ to what was described as an ‘Overlook’. This was difficult to imagine until we saw the model. It was, however, an unbuilt scheme.

This experience of building up to a view from a subterranean passage sounds familiar.

Yes. Many visitors noticed a similarity to how Mr. Pei designed the long dark tunnel which one must walk through before Miho Museum (1991–1997) comes to sight. The idea of one discovering a paradise-like world through a passageway in a grotto recalls the Chinese fable of ‘The Peace Blossom Spring’. This is the fable that Mr. Pei referred to when he proposed such a processionary path for the Miho Museum, as the client likened the museum to a pilgrimage site. In the case of the Johnson Museum, Mr. Pei exercised a similar kind of playful, delayed gratification to a surprising discovery of a view or a destination. Here, it’s the surprising revelation of the beautiful, steep gorge which the campus is known for.

Pei often went beyond his role as an architect. Tell me more about his work outside of the traditional confines of architecture.

In the field of architectural design, the term ‘programme’ refers to how particular spaces are used. Based on certain documents and interviews, we realised that Mr. Pei had suggested new types or uses of space that went beyond the client’s brief and even the scope of his role as an architect. Some of these examples, largely related to the third room of the exhibition ‘Art and Civic Form’, reveal how Mr. Pei, to some extent, had shaped the content of the museums he designed.

How did he shape the content of the museums he worked on?

That’s an important question. We wanted to emphasise that Mr. Pei’s interest and ability to design museums were based not only on his design capacity but also his affinity towards the art and artists of his time. We also wanted to highlight Mr. Pei’s focus on designing museums not just for displaying art but, more importantly, as spaces people can enjoy. It is largely due to these two concerns that Mr. Pei proposed Henry Moore’s Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 3 (1961) to be an integral part of the entrance plaza of Everson Museum (1961–1968) from the earliest drawings. Moore’s work eventually became part of the Museum’s collection, as recommended by Mr. Pei.

This was more of an example of Pei’s role in shaping aspects of the museum’s collection. What did you find striking about Pei’s ideas?

The most striking instance was when Mr. Pei recommended Suzhou Museum (2000–2006), known for their collection of Chinese antiquities, to build a permanent gallery for contemporary art. Mr. Pei’s belief in engaging history with the present led to his suggestion of a different type of gallery for contemporary works to be in productive dialogue with the museum’s historical collection. Unlike the other galleries in the museum, the contemporary art wing is more of a white cube with angular ceilings and windows underneath letting in natural light and views. Mr. Pei even ‘curated’ the inaugural exhibition in this space by choosing to present the works of three important Chinese-born contemporary artists practicing abroad—Zao Wou-Ki, Xu Bing, and Cai Guo-Qiang—who are known to reinterpret China’s traditions and histories in abstract ways that evoke sentiments across cultures. Cai even made a new gunpowder painting that indirectly paid homage to Mr. Pei’s life, as evidenced by his study for this painting shown in the exhibition Searching for Dreams in the Canals. This gallery at Suzhou Museum continues to present important works of contemporary Chinese artists.

Earlier, you mentioned Pei’s belief in engaging history—can you expand on that? Why was this an important aspect of Pei’s practice?

An architect typically engages with history either in consideration of the historical context of the site or the surrounding fabric of the building they’re designing. It could also be the consideration of specific historical or cultural archetypes based on the urban or cultural milieu the building is part of. This is an important aspect of Mr. Pei’s practice firstly because he had sought for a national or regional expression in architecture as early as when he was still at Harvard Graduate School of Design. This aspiration for modern architecture’s ability to address diverse cultures, traditions, and histories led to his much talked about Museum of Chinese Art for Shanghai (1946) which punctured the museum space with multiple courtyards so classical works of Chinese art could be viewed in dialogue with nature. Secondly, it is important to understand because there has been some simplistic readings of Mr. Pei’s work as a mere mixing of old and new, or a postmodern bricolage, but his work is much more complex and intentional. The sixth and final chapter of the exhibition is meant to show that it is much more complex and specific in its design intention and strategy.

What is the most striking example that demonstrate Pei’s particular approach to history?

As shown in the sixth chapter ‘Reinterpreting History Through Design’ of the exhibition, there are many examples. My personal highlight is Mr. Pei’s initial design for Musée d’Art Moderne Grand-Duc Jean (MUDAM) Luxembourg (1989–2006). I purposely chose to display the model of this design that was unbuilt to demonstrate Mr. Pei’s method of engaging with a historical site. Firstly, Mr. Pei chose to build the art museum on the 18th century Fort Thüngen as a site, as opposed to any other site that he could have chosen. It struck me how the tension of building something new on the foundations of a fortress appealed to Mr. Pei. He had proposed to place the main entrance through the fort itself. But opposition by preservationists led to the entryway moved to the rear of the complex, leaving the main fort untouched, which has been largely forgotten today. I find Mr. Pei’s initial design much stronger as it would have fulfilled his desire to enliven a historical site with contemporary use of the space.