Cultural & Aesthetic:
Paul Goldberger calls the A+A a “dynamic sculptural building,” a “disciplined formal statement, free of the wild eccentricities of many sculpturally active buildings yet in the view of many critics possessing a drama that seemed, to many, to be almost a summary statement of modern architecture.” So while this heavy concrete building seems to belie the lessons of “glassy” modernism, it actually achieves a fruitful dialogue with early modernism by embracing a certain monumental aesthetic. Although to many, it belied the functionalism of modernism, favoring a monumental statement over a truly functional university building.
Canonical status: The A&A is one of the most controversial and important buildings built after World War II. Right before its inauguration, Ada Louise Huxtable of the Times called the A&A’s rough concrete walls “3-D,” in stark contrast to the “flat, glassy surfaces of the current American architectural look [modernism].” This was recognition of the way in which Rudolph’s design was a departure from what had been the status quo of campus architecture up to this point.
At the inauguration Huxtable reported, “For six months, the word has gone around that this is the architect’s architecture at the highest level. Even on a campus rich in big-name architectural experiments, it stands out. It has set some kind of a record for being visited, photographed and discussed by the profession during construction. In a field torn by polemics, architects at opposite esthetic poles are united in praise” and predicted that the building “will set trends nationally and internationally. It will surely be one of the most influential buildings of this decade.” Major architecture magazines in the U.S. and abroad featured the building prominently, and the American Institute of Architects gave it a First Honor Award. Thus the A+A was hailed as a groundbreaking work, a departure from the international “glassy modernism” towards a new “brutal” modernism.