Talk:Toward an Architecture

The logic and meaning of this paragraph is inscrutable

The authorship of the book was complex.

Indeed, as was apparently the authorship of this particular section. I suspect whomever wrote or transcribed this paragraph may have inadvertently switched the names around.

Le Corbusier co-owned L'Esprit Nouveau with fellow purist painter Amédée Ozenfant. They co-signed many of the original essays as "Le Corbusier-Saugnier," and Ozenfant had been a close friend of Corbusier. – Corbu and Ozenfant co-owned the magazine; essays written by the pair were signed by "Le Corbusier-Saugnier," inexplicably introducing the name "Saugnier" into the discussion; closing with a non-sequitur.

Ozenfant denied having written the book, claiming that the essays were based on conversations the two had had together about theories written by Auguste Perret and Adolf Loos. As the book became more known, their fight became more heated. – Ozenfant denies his involvement, and as the book gained notoriety, his protestations increased in pitch. Makes sense, right? The more people credit you for something you wish to reject, the more you'll complain. Simple enough to follow along with.

Here's where it all flips upside-down: Ozenfant began to claim not only more credit for authorship, but also that Le Corbusier had purposefully excluded him by dedicating the original edition to Ozenfant. Like, what? Guy who fully rejected his authorship is claiming "more credit" - more than what? Zero? Or is this line trying to say that in fact Ozzy had been claiming some credit all this time? Even more confusing is the statement that Corbu excluded Ozenfant by dedicating the book to Ozenfant - can someone more versed in contradictions and paradoxes perhaps straighten this one out into something sensible? – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)