Lúcio Costa discusses Max Bill’s lecture, the text of which was published in Habitat magazine. It was a controversial article that prompted a great deal of discussion at the time. Costa highlights the differences he sees in modern Brazilian architecture, claiming that a balance can be struck between artistic goals and functional requirements, an approach that was viewed with some skepticism by those who supported functionalism. In Costa’s opinion, Max Bill was a designer of pure forms that could be applied functionally, and saw value in this contribution, though not in terms of art objects, which evolve from the creation of significant forms (with specific intentions, whether selfishly motivated or not) for the expression of human emotions. Costa, on the other hand, sees architecture as one of the fine arts, in which aesthetic selection responds to the personal feelings that are constantly being stimulated during the creative process, and—as regards the separation or fusion of the arts—prefers to use the term “integration.” This, in his opinion, is the major point on which he and Max Bill disagree. Costa also criticizes Max Bill’s opinions on Brazilian architecture that were published in an earlier edition of HABITAT. Costa defends the Ministério da Educação e Saúde (1936–43)—the historic project designed by Le Corbusier, on which Costa and others also worked, that ushered in modern Brazilian architecture—as being warm and inviting, and built to a human scale. Discussing the interior patio of that building on Debret Street (in the heart of Rio de Janeiro), Costa considers it to be inadequate for a large-scale property, explaining the function of the tiles (designed by the painter Candido Portinari) that help to mitigate the density of the non-structural walls and echo Portuguese tradition. In his essay, Costa highlights the various positive qualities of the Pampulha development (designed by Oscar Niemeyer in Belo Horizonte in 1943), claiming that without it, landmark architectural achievements such as the Conjunto de Pedregulho (designed by the architect Affonso E. Reidy in Rio de Janeiro in 1952) would not have been possible. He sarcastically endorses the social goals of a particular type of architecture, but insists on respecting formal (and baroque) freedom as an integral facet of Brazilian identity, which would be extremely healthy for a regional style of architecture that acknowledges local differences.        

After being awarded the Grand Prize for his metal sculpture Dreiteilige Einheit [Tripartite Unity] (1950) at the Primera Bienal de São Paulo (1951), an event he was unable to attend, Max Bill (1908–94), the Swiss painter, sculptor, and architect, was finally able to travel to Brazil at the invitation of the Ministério das Relações Exteriores. He agreed to be interviewed by the architect and art critic Flávio d’Aquino, and the transcript of their conversation was published in Manchete, a weekly magazine with a large circulation and, some months later, in HABITAT, the magazine that was edited by Lina Bo Bardi. Both the interview and the lecture that the Swiss architect gave at the Faculdade de Arquitetura da Universidade in São Paulo caused something of a stir among Brazilian architects. Max Bill radically questioned the type of (Brazilian) formalism that does not commit to the form’s logic of creation, or to what he calls architecture’s “social function.” This is the basis of the debate that began with the indignant article written by Lúcio Costa (1902–98), the Brazilian architect and urban planner who was best known for planning the country’s new capital, Brasilia (1956–61).  

In reference to this matter, see by Flávio d’Aquino, “Max Bill Max Bill critica a nossa moderna arquitetura,” Manchete, Rio de Janeiro, 13 jun. 1953; by Max Bill, “O arquiteto, a arquitetura, a sociedade,” Habitat, n.14, São Paulo, jan./feb. 1954; and by Eduardo Corona, “O testamento tripartido de Max Bill,” A & D: Arquitetura e Decoração, n.4, São Paulo, mar. /apr. 1954.