The blending of instrumental and symbolic representation has been a prob-

lematic feature of twentieth-century architecture. Since the failure of the

postmodernist project, instrumental reason continues to dominate architec-

tural practice. This is usually to the exclusion of an authentic symbolic

representation such as is found in myth and poetry, and which can emerge

only from a creative interpretation of tradition. One of the most illuminating examples of this modern dilemma in the early twentieth century is the

work of Le Corbusier. His reductivist, Utopian urban visions are still justly

seen as a key impetus behind the urban planning policies which inflicted

such damage on our cities in the name of modern progress. Yet as a

counterpart to his urban work, Le Corbusier saw an urgent need for the

regeneration of the culture of dwelling.2 Through his intuitive creative

process, he addressed this problem more successfully than most others in

the modern period. When working at the scale of a single painting or a

house, he was often able to create a work of art meaningfully rooted in

deep archetypal undercurrents and able to sustain a vital world of meaning.