This question is raised frequently to those of us engaged in the project, and we puzzle over it, too.
He certainly was not overlooked during his lifetime. As part of the time line now in preparation, we are including buttons for news articles about his achievements. Paul R. Williams was there! People admired, respected and, above all, knew about him.
After the extensive obituaries that followed his death in 1980, interest in his work and life seems to have vanished. In 1993, Karen Hudson’s beautiful pictorial account of his career, Paul R. Williams, Architect: A Legacy of Style, was a momentous revelation, as if centuries, not merely thirteen years, had passed. Thanks to that book, his name added value to residential properties, thus the real estate industry has kept his name alive at the same time that historic preservationists put his buildings on their agendas and endangered species lists. The weekend real estate sections of the Los Angeles Times for October 24th and 25th included 5 ads for “Paul R. Williams” designed houses. Few other architects were mentioned. (Well, except for Frank Lloyd Wright’s two textile block houses now on the market!)
Why have scholars shown so little interest in Paul R. Williams’ work or career?
The following are personal speculations, not answers.
1. He was not a stylistic purist.
When asked about writing a piece on Williams, one architectural historian declined with some asperity saying that Paul R. Williams was a “historicist” and “eclectic” architect, a representative of those who were enemies of modern architecture and therefore those against whom modernist architectural historians battled. I would not argue against the proposition that modernist architecture is the true expression of 20th century culture in the built environment. I do question the narrow definition of modernism that ossified thinking about 20th century architecture and excluded most of it, including a great deal of Williams’ work. He clearly admired modernism and, I suspect, would be appalled at a characterization of himself as its enemy or his designs as anti-modern. Nonetheless, the attitude expressed by the architectural historian, if not as baldly stated, was and is still shared by a powerful component of the profession.
2. It is hard to wrap a mind around Williams’ architecture.
He is responsible in whole or part for some 3000 buildings in a spectrum of styles encompassing residential, commercial and institutional building types. It seems to me that the immensity and diversity of his career has simply stopped scholars in their tracks. Furthermore, Williams, as is customary for large projects , collaborated with other architects, with the result that it is difficult to assign specific responsibility on some important projects.
3. The fact that he was African American has led to scholarly paralysis.
Is studying him an “affirmative action” undertaking? Is it possible to consider his work apart from his race? Is it desirable to consider his work without regard to the social context of race?
This issue pops up repeatedly. At the College Art Association conference session in February 2009 about Paul R. Williams, a black audience member asked if the project would have been developed had he not been African American or, put another way, if his blackness was the project’s pivot. Moderators (project members) and panelists (non-project participants) gave individual responses. The consensus was that Williams’ career is notable and worthy of attention for many reasons, but, as an African American in environment generally and specifically hostile to blacks, his achievement was singular and held significance even beyond the great importance of his architecture.
The project has encountered people at every step who raise this issue. Some enthusiastically support the notion that Williams’ obscurity is undeserved and that the project is a step toward proper acknowledgment of an important architect who overcame racist stigma. Others are skeptical or simply negative about what they see as promoting a man, as one critic put it, who encountered and negotiated normal discrimination, instead of a man who produced exemplary architecture.
4. Williams’ office records were destroyed.
Architectural research is vastly aided by a centrally located archive of correspondence and contracts among architects, clients, contractors, and collaborators. The simple questions of who he worked for and with is not impossible to ascertain, but the nature of the decision making, the relationships between project participants, a sequence of project relationships–none of this information is known to exist. Complete archives of architectural careers are rare, but certainly a complete void is a disincentive for scholars. Williams’ descendants hold a large collection of architectural renderings and construction documents. When these are available, scholars may be motivated to overcome the absence of correspondence. But in the meanwhile, potential historians of his work face formidable odds.
Are there other and/or more significant reasons? Possibly. Probably.
Any thoughts out there?
