4 Trial Offer
3 Fuller rushed the 4D House project because he planned to present it at the upcoming AIA convention. He hoped that acceptance by the organization would provide a seal of approval. The institute might also be persuaded to assist in the project’s realization. As noted previously, the AIA used a building materials classification system; Fuller used 4D to refer to its classification of Stockade blocks, 4-D-32. Perhaps he thought the name would help AIA members understand his newly developed contribution to the evolution of mass production: from building blocks to the entire house. He also knew AIA members would be more critical of his idea than business associates. The convention would open on May 16, which left Fuller little time to prepare for his toughest audience.
4 The patent application was a large part of his preparations. Another was the first version of his combined business prospectus and architectural manifesto, 4D Timelock. In addition to the written supplements, Fuller might have made a model for the patent application and exhibited it at the convention1 although the only reference to a model is by Earl Reed, a Chicago architect, in 1940:
67‘‘Remember way back, if you can, to the old St. Louis days —little hotel room, two architects and a delightful enthusiast with model of Dymaxion House, then perhaps you will also remember Earl Reed.’’2
9 In his enthusiasm, Reed undoubtedly misremembered what happened twelve years earlier. Fuller never referred to the use of a model at the 1928 convention, although he cited a hastily written essay he gave to interested parties.3 Fuller related this essay to neither the different preconvention outlines nor the patent application even if he did use some of the latter’s drawings and technical information to supplement it. Fuller also drafted a speech for the convention, but if he delivered it, it was not to an assembly. Fuller is not listed in the schedule or in the proceedings.4 Immediately after the convention he wrote a response in which he intimated that he had not been permitted to deliver his speech because it had not been arranged in advance.5 In another context Fuller described the presentation in St. Louis as private, although whether private meant one-on-one or an unofficial closed-door session is not noted.6 In addition, after the conference he informed Tomlinson that he ‘‘was asked to attend the convention by several of the Chicago delegates.’’7 This was simply an attempt to impress Tomlinson. Nothing in the archives of the Chicago Chapter, St. Louis Chapter, and national AIA office supports Fuller’s remark.8 If delegates from Chicago had asked Fuller to attend the convention, they would likely have covered his expenses. Yet Fuller paid for the trip as he confided to Hewlett: ‘‘About our last pennies were spent in getting the booklet together, in mailing it out, and in making the trip to St. Louis.’’9 Fuller sent Tomlinson a ‘‘write up of my house’’ that was ‘‘presented…at St. Louis’’ in an ‘‘official though private presentation,’’10 implying the AIA had sanctioned it. Fuller may have expected he would be given an opportunity to present the project by one of the organization’s members who supported him. Or he may have simply gone to seek out members who would be supportive of the 4D House and whom he could enlist in its further development. In either case, Fuller knew he needed to be exceptionally persuasive. Therefore, in the draft of his speech he relied upon a combination of prayer, criticism, and recent events:
1011In the name of Christ (and in twenty centuries this name has not been invoked more reverentially) let us cease distrusting others in our selfish way…Architects of the American Institute let this new spirit of St. Louis, break down forever this wall of distrust of others which must ever make you distrust yourselves, God make…you unselfishly recognize the artistry in your fellows that you may free it in yourself. All must balance. Recognize then your…unborn, artistry…the new story of the architecture in …individualism with its scale of the universe, with a million editions. Let this be the temporal…harmonious…manifestation of your art in the everlasting monument to the new spirit of St. Louis. Amen.11
21 Fuller cleverly referred to the plane, Spirit of St. Louis, in which Charles Lindbergh had made the first solo, nonstop flight from New York to Paris in May of the previous year. Technology made such an astounding feat possible. Fuller used the analogy to emphasize that through technology improvements in-house construction could also be achieved.
22 If Fuller delivered his clever analogy, it garnered less support than he expected. In retaliation he wrote a lengthy rejoinder about his convention experience that immediately follows the draft of the speech in his papers. The complex response praised the members who accepted Fuller’s idea. It was also strongly critical of those who did not because of their backward attitudes:
2324Upon completion of this paper it was rushed to St. Louis…for the…61st …Annual convention of the American Institute of Architects…
25Despite a benevolent reception on the part of almost all with whom contact was made …Said many members approached, ‘‘Yes, this seems very important, I will study it after the convention.’’ (Not explaining that the two hours necessary to its study during the convention was elusive for a little convention drinking golf, etc. For such is the standard value of conventions.)
26Everything that is to occur is taken up weeks and months in advance by steering committees…[a] question at a convention brooks no answers. Except for …predetermined measures there would be no necessity of convention. …The artful guise of feudalistic…or basic material lobbying …parading as artistic and dignified patronage at the architect’s convention which seeks to keep the histrionic, inimitable glory…over architecture…in ancient and…otherwise obsolete methods on the part of the producers, is heart rendering to the…champion of individualism. No where else has feudalism…such a rotten hold as on this most important of…industries, that of home building…The new patron of art is the great individualism of democracy which will lavish the artist with economic sustenance…if he will but create for them living enjoyment through mass reproduction (the creative step up, of truth, economics, standardization love & life.)
27(The very secret of nature is reproduction…in the most standard undeformed manner…ten fingers & ten toes.) Here stands feudalism between the permanent competence of individual man through…the house. So long as homes can be kept stylistically deferred will selfish feudalism be able to bully its way along without having to lift a finger or…install a machine to relieve back breaking labor, to compete with progress…
28To stoically, with this knowledge established permanently in other industries, & with the nauseating mawkish clutch of the ancient stone and other feudal holdings upon this convention of architects…who…would if…intelligent at all, be the first to release the hold, are complacently be fuddled with liquor every time they approach an economic question …& aesthetic drivel supplants enlightening argument…
29With the aid of stalwart friends amongst these architects, given prior to this convention, a careful survey was made of how who might be approached and at the same time be helpful if approached…the charming but…standard ineffectiveness of the meeting…[the] spread of criticism designed to bring forth enlightenment was written down, when it was realized that a personal delivery of it to as many as possible would be a thousand times surer…than the possible blundering loss of all interest due to the personal equation in a general address. This proved to be a wiser course and…an effective number of the convention’s most worthwhile members went forth from this convention imbued with the new spirit. This in effect was the speech as…composed and generally given.12
31 The excerpt illustrates the disparate reactions by AIA members to Fuller’s proposal. It also accentuates Fuller’s conflicting attitude toward the organization: he wants its approval even as he dismisses its policies. In it he complains about the rigidity of conference planners and domestic design. Fuller points to flaws in the architectural system that render the architect subservient to the client and to economics. His project for an industrially reproduced house, the 4D House, would free the architect from both. Hope for the future of domestic design existed in the form of architects who understood and embraced his message. Fuller received enough encouragement to believe his ‘‘new spirit of St. Louis’’ was sturdy enough to carry him to success.
32 Whatever his original plan for the convention, Fuller presented the 4D House to only a few conference attendees. He admitted that he carefully studied AIA members to determine who would be receptive. His choices were so accurate his idea was given a ‘‘benevolent reception’’ by ‘‘almost all with whom contact was made.’’ In his post-convention letter to Tomlinson, Fuller happily reported his house ‘‘was presented to 18 members of the American Institute at St. Louis, who were picked out as being broad and unselfish thinkers and with more than satisfactory results.’’13 Fuller wanted his associates to believe he officially introduced the project to a select group. He implied a formal presentation, perhaps with a speech and a model. Yet many of the solicitation letters Fuller sent to AIA members he met in St. Louis noted a more casual approach.14 He sent A. P. Herman of the University of Washington ‘‘the paper which I spoke of to you in the bus at St. Louis.’’15 He reminded T. R. Kimball, a former president of the AIA, that his father-in-law ‘‘was kind enough to introduce [us] at the convention. Attached is the paper which you asked that I send to you.’’16 None of the correspondence hinted at a presentation, a speech, or a model in a ‘‘little hotel room.’’ Nor did any of the responses. Hewlett, who certainly would have attended any presentation, made no comment about it although he carefully assured his anxious son-in-law he had ‘‘read your pamphlet very carefully.’’17 About a month after the convention, Allen Erickson, the head of the Architects Small House Bureau in Chicago, informed Fuller, ‘‘[I] read your discourse on the industrialized home which you gave me at St. Louis, but I have not studied it.’’18 Two of Fuller’s early supporters, John Boyd Jr. and Arthur Holden, both Manhattan-based architects, also failed to comment on any presentation even though they were quite excited about the project.19 The correspondence convincingly demonstrates that Fuller gained support for the project from AIA members who were willing to learn about it despite the organization’s stance against standardization of design. Fuller later claimed that his presentation of the 4D House compelled the AIA to pass a resolution declaring it was ‘‘inherently opposed to any peas-in-a-pod-like reproducible designs.’’20 This is an incredible boast and another mis-representation of events Fuller exploited to his advantage. Even if Fuller had made a formal presentation to the entire convention, it is difficult to accept the AIA would have been so threatened by the 4D House it would have immediately pushed through such a resolution. Large member- and committee-driven organizations like the AIA simply do not react so quickly; issues need to be tabled, debated, and voted. There was no reason for it to be threatened and at tempt to nip a potentially dangerous competitor in the bud since various types of mass-produced houses were already on the market. The AIA could not have been motivated by the 4D House to take a stance against industrially reproduced houses because opposition to standardization of design in architecture was a conference theme. The St. Louis Star reported ‘‘[criticism] of a growing tendency to standardize architectural design throughout the country was placed before the American Institute of Architects by its board of directors.’’21 The board accepted ‘‘certain functions of the architect may well become standardized’’ and expressed concern for ‘‘the art of design.’’22 The AIA was concerned because standardization of architectural design produced ‘‘a universal product made to sell’’23 whose appearance was determined more by profit margins than by aesthetics. The detrimental effects of standardization of design included the disappearance of what Kenneth Frampton would later refer to as critical regionalism24 and what the AIA board described as local architectural character:
4546‘‘Local characteristics are fast disappearing in this era of common thought and mechanical advance ment. Communities are coming to look more and more like peas of one pod. A certain commercialism is making itself more and more evident in the type of architecture employed throughout the country.’’25
48 The prevalence of commercialism and poor design quality could not ‘‘be attributed alone to the efforts of the uneducated or inefficient architect.’’26 Even architects of high repute and strong ability were losing sight of the ‘‘Character of Design’’ and falling ‘‘under the influence of a cosmopolitan and general type of architecture.’’27 This trend could be reversed if architects would imbue their designs with character ‘‘whose importance cannot be overlooked or neglected without a marked deterioration, rather than an advancement in our work. Character of Design is the spirit, the soul, and the life of any architectural achievement, something deeper by far than style, expression of usage, or choice of materials.’’28 Ironically, this es say also called for a ‘‘new spirit’’ in architecture responding to local conditions and exhibiting quality in design. Obviously, Fuller and the AIA were describing different types of spirit: the AIA drew upon its connotation as essence while Fuller used it as a sense of adventure, a form of individualism. The problem of standardization in architectural design was addressed at the convention in order to ‘‘plant a seed that during the coming year may grow to larger and possibly unexpected proportions.’’29 Milton Medary, the AIA president, criticized the monotony of modern, standardized buildings that fail to respond to local traditions:
4950Cities once typical of the geographical, historical, and climatic conditions out of which a definite character was established, today exhibit a clearly marked line between that original character and the standardized type…Side by side with the old…is the modern bank, hotel, and high school, alike throughout the United States, while …‘‘Main Street’’ is lighted by a row of typical standards, cast in the same foundry, and is lined with the standardized contribution of chain store organizations}30
56 He criticized standardization and mass production when they contributed to the abandonment of distinctive, local traditions to produce uniformity. He was dismayed by the role standardization played in the growing homogeneity of architecture, design, and taste.
57 Standardization of design, not standardization of production methods, was clearly the problematic issue. Medar’s comment about street lamps being made by one manufacturer disparaged the resultant similarity of city streets, not how they were made. He was opposed to standardization when it limited design options. After all, brick making had long been standardized and the mass production of standard-sized nails was welcomed. Bricks and nails are tools used to realize architectural designs, yet the buildings made with them are not uniform in appearance. To the AIA standardization as a tool for production was not detrimental to architectural character, but standardization as a method of design was.
58 Fuller advocated the use of standardization in both applications for the 4D House, an unfortunate proposal given the AIA’s position. The patent application included standardized, mass-produced building components. These would be assembled into identical 4D Houses without concession to regional differences. Theoretically, different versions of the 4D House could be developed. Sears, Hodgson, and Gordon-Van Tine sold many different models of their mass-produced houses, some with regional features. Diversity did not figure into Fuller’s plans because he felt one design best represented the ideology behind the house. He believed deference to style and the search for individuality inhibited the appreciation of the industrially reproduced house.31 While trying to promote a new version of Fuller Houses in the 1940s, he explained how individuality in mass-produced houses could be ‘‘achieved in the setting of a house, by planting …by the way the walk is laid out, through use of a terrace’’ and selective application of paint.32 Formal (and name) changes to the 4D House occurred over time with each new design superseding the previous.33 Fuller considered no historical designs, no Colonial, no Tudor, no California Mission options. To Fuller, standardized methods of production meant a single standardized design. Standardized design, Fuller argued, was normal and desirable. He posited that uniformity of appearance was the norm: ‘‘The very secret of nature is reproduction of its own form in the most standard undeformed manner.’’34 Fuller drew upon the criteria of human beauty: ‘‘The most beautiful…child is the one with the least…ataxia, who …has …ten fingers and ten toes.’’35 He found a certain freedom, a certain confidence in standardized appearance: ‘‘Is not the public intuitively aware that the very beauty of a child lies in the …most regular of material features, unharassed into unbecoming self-consciousness, by the least unstandard deformity? Is it not the truth of standardization that ever pours more individual freedom and happiness into life?’’36 Fuller presented a logical if one-sided argument. By focusing on typical human features and the predilection that like produces like, he was overlooking the differences between individuals that make one more attractive than another. He also overlooked the differences in the use of spoken and written language, ‘‘standardized symbols,’’37 that created personal expression. Even though the spoken and written word have standard formats, the way they are used enriches their meaning and their presentation. It also reflects the individuality of the person using them. In effect, by asserting conformity to the norm allowed for unconscious individuality, Fuller was discounting how variations of the human body and personal expression denote individuality. It was this second type of individuality, singularity in appearance and personal expression, the AIA found lacking in standardized design. The AIA felt standardized design exhibited no character and was artless in its uniformity. Fuller thought the interest in art and insistence upon character of design was pandering to tradition and patronage. He contended that it took a strong individual to oppose this entrenched position: ‘‘It takes a real character to about face weeding up all the old fallacies of custom, deep rooted prior to personal responsibilities.’’38 The personal responsibility was to design houses to be built with the most modern means available: mass production and industrial meth ods. Fuller believed standardized design would free architects from eking out a living as they catered to their clients’ whims. Given the polarity of their attitudes toward the use of standardization, Fuller’s decision to use the AIA membership as his test audience was ill-conceived. He most likely did not know the organization was planning to announce its firm opposition to standardized design. The ‘‘suggested theme’’ of the convention was ‘‘The Mobilization of the Forces which make for better architecture.’’39 These forces included collaboration in the arts of design and excluded standardization. Even if he had been forewarned about the organization’s dismissal of standardized design, Fuller may have believed his idea was compelling enough to overcome any opposition. He ripped the printed version of Medary’s speech out of the board’s report and wrote along its margins: ‘‘On the basis of this question propounded by the Institute President to which many answers are given in our essay The question can be materially presented to the convention in the form of the essay.’’40 Two articles from the February issue of the Journal of the American Institute of Architects may have bolstered Fuller’s confidence that the 4D House and its corresponding essay would overcome opposition at the convention. These were ‘‘Collaboration in Art Education’’ by Everett V. Meeks and ‘‘Our Industrial Arts: Reflections on the State of Design’’ by Richard F. Bach.41 Fuller sent each a copy of 4D Timelock. He informed Meeks, dean of the School of Fine Arts and director of the Department of Architecture at Yale University, that his article and the ‘‘striking design now coming from your school, encouraged us to hope that you may find time to read and comment on this paper.’’42 Fuller did not communicate which parts of the article appealed to him. Meeks’s premise was that collaboration between different ‘‘specialists’’ should be taught to art and architecture students ‘‘if we are to carry on the torch of veritable and living art, it is by giving the fullest training possible …together with the fullest possible advantages of technical instruction…This the university can do if it will plan for and develop the dual program of both academic and technical curricula.’’43 Fuller may have misinterpreted Meeks’s call for ‘‘technical instruction’’ and ‘‘technical curricula’’ as meaning industrial techniques. This was not Meeks’s intent; he was referring to technical proficiency within an art student’s discipline. If Meeks responded, his answer is lost. There is also no record of a reply from Richard Bach, associate in Industrial Design at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fuller explained that he was sending the essay because certain phrases in Bach’s text ‘‘seem almost to relate us mentally’’44 Bach ruminated on the current state of industrial design and the dearth of designers capable of producing quality objects via machine or traditional methods. One way to ensure quality was ‘‘adherence to principle and a study of practical requirements which together aid in designing from the inside out.’’45 Bach also proclaimed that it was best to analyze a problem by ‘‘seeing it in the round, so that various aspects here barely mentioned may be seen at closer range.’’46 The phrases that caught Fuller’s attention were ‘‘designing from the inside out’’ and ‘‘in the round.’’47 Fuller felt affinity toward these because they were the same criteria he employed. Fuller had already analyzed the problem of housing from these angles as Bach suggested; the end result was the innovative 4D House. In Fuller’s mind, Bach’s and Meeks’s articles confirmed that he and others thought along similar lines. Surprisingly, neither article is in the 4D Timelock reference list. Their ideas may have played only secondary roles in the development of Fuller’s thinking, yet they were Al A members whose support Fuller wanted. In writing directly to them, Fuller utilized the same strategy he used in St. Louis: sell the project to AIA members one at a time. This may seem an odd objective given the organization’s opposition to standardized design. Fuller’s experience in St. Louis demonstrated, however, that some AIA members did not accept the organization’s opposition to standardized design.
76 To persuade these potential supporters, Fuller argued that the AIA was opposed to the use of standardization when it was applied to objects as if it were surface decoration. In a letter to his father-in-law, Fuller reminded Hewlett that they agreed on this:
7778‘‘[A]s we discussed …the standardization referred to was that, attempted …by manufacturers of…confined exterior limitations, of a method of design that starts on the outside.’’48
80Some of Fuller’s supporters accepted his spin on the AIA’s stance, such as John Boyd who wrote: ‘‘Regarding the matter of standardization at the A.I.A. Convention, under present conditions the type of standardization which the directors of the Institute warned against is entirely different from what you have in mind.’’49 Fuller was emphasizing the distinction between his interest in standardization and what the AIA rejected because he wanted the organization to assume trusteeship of the 4D project. Fuller did not broach this subject in St. Louis; he first suggested it in his June 8 letter to Hewlett:
8283‘‘This is an official offer to you in your capacity of first Vice-President of the American Institute of Architects…I thereby offer to the Institute, prior to its becoming in anyway commercialized, an eleven months option to acquire the controlling interest of the 4D patents.’’50
85Fuller was only offering the AIA a controlling interest, not ownership. Basically, he wanted the organization to assume responsibility for protecting and developing the 4D House, perhaps to help ease the financial responsibility of his two committed investors, Russell Walcott and John Douglas.51 He explained to Hewlett: ‘‘If [my offer is] taken up by the Institute the two main requirements will be that an international contest of design be worked out…with a contractual obligation of the contestants that all title to ownership of…design automatically accrue to the AIA; the second is that the Institute place and carry adequate patent insurance of the 4D letters patent.’’52 Fuller also requested the AIA work in tandem with the Harvard Business School:
8889‘‘a portion of the patent interest…deeded to the Harvard School of Business Administration, in turn for its services in the evolution of…administration and stock ownership distribution that will make 4D most widely participated in and beneficial to, the permanent competence of mankind.’’53
91 He abandoned the idea of contacting the Harvard Business School by mid-August because he realized it was a bad idea. Fuller did not explain what his own role in this three-way partnership would be.
92 Fuller was clear all involved parties would benefit financially. He emphasized that the AIA would gain from the collaboration since he was rather audaciously asking it to help develop the project. In return for its assistance, the organization would earn income and maintain its significance within architectural culture. He worried about the AIA’s solvency as ‘‘the treasurer’s statement…reveals a trying financial condition.’’54 Fuller focused on the benefits the AIA would reap because he wanted his father-in-law to act as his representative in the negotiations. Hewlett was skeptical of Fuller’s proposal on a number of levels. He thought the project was sound, but needed to be more thoroughly developed: ‘‘Granting the economical soundness of the basic idea—which I certainly do grant —I am rather appalled by the number of supplementary matters in regard to which some solution will be necessary before making an actual plunge into production but that of course is a matter that you have been giving constant thought to.’’55 Hewlett also informed Fuller that he was returning some materials because he was too busy to give them the attention they required:
9596I am returning herewith the information you sent me in regard to the patents, applications, etc., as I do not think there is any likelihood that I can contribute any useful ideas unless I get a great deal more time than at present seems to be available to think over the matter…I shall be interested to hear further of your plans as they develop and, also, whether the backing that you are relying upon is in your judgement sufficient to tide you over what must necessarily …be a long period of experimentation and promotion.56
98 He encouraged his son-in-law to pursue the project without losing sight of his financial considerations. This kindly letter was sent a little over a month after Fuller initially offered controlling interest of the 4D letters patent to the AIA through Hewlett. His father-in-law did not respond to that proposal, and Fuller apprehensively awaited Hewlett’s reaction:
99100Anne has written you that I am extremely anxious to hear from you in reply to my letter of June 8th…A number of the architects out here know of my proposal and are anxious to know what your action will be. Those who are interested in the Institute would like to see them take it provided it was assured of a progressive management, but they are all fearful that there are too many habitual worshipers of ‘‘good old times’’ to permit its acceptance57
102 Fuller was pressuring Hewlett for an answer his father-in-law may have wanted to avoid giving. Hewlett’s response arrived on July 12. He reminded Fuller that a mass-produced, standardized house went against the AIA’s position of promoting the art of architecture:
103104Under the constitution of the Institute I do not see how it would be possible …to accept such a position in relation to any proposed program of procedure. The basic principle of such an organization is the encouragement of proper individual effort in the practice of the art of architecture…Whether you like it or not and whether you think this attitude is progressive or not, the fact remains that it is the prevailing sentiment of the American Institute of Architects…that the sort of standardization now going on in many branches of industry is definitely hurtful to the development of architecture as an art.58
106 Even though he was losing patience with his persistent son-in-law and was not willing to act as Fuller’s emissary, Hewlett explained the correct procedure for approaching the AIA:
107108The proper way for you to handle this matter is…to address a communication to the American Institute of Architects describing…the fundamental ideas…and expressing the desire that the patents covering these ideas should be placed under the control of a body of men or a board of trustees selected with the sole view of utilizing those patents for the benefit of the art of architecture in general. My expectation would be that if the matter was presented to the Board of Directors…in that form, the whole matter would be referred to the Structural Service Committee of which Mr. Max Dunning of Chicago is the Chairman, and any subsequent action on the matter by the Board would be dependent on the report of the Structural Service Committee…You understand that this is entirely a personal let ter and not in any way a reply to any formal proposition on your part to the Institute. If and when such formal proposal is made, it will have to come through the regular channels as I have outlined above but my advice to you would be to see Max Dunning and explain the matter personally and fully to him, showing him, if you like this letter and see what he says.59
110 Hewlett wanted to dissuade Fuller from continuing with his offer. But, if Fuller were going to proceed, he would shift responsibility for its probable rejection to Dunning.
111 As instructed Fuller sent the material to Dunning, and a bit later lamented:
112113‘‘Have not as yet heard from Dunning!’’60
115By the end of July, Fuller knew the AIA was not interested in his offer. He sent letters to Raymond Hood and Mr. Sternfeld conceding that his plans for the AIAs participation were not going to materialize:
116117‘‘The possibility of the acceptance by the Institute of the proposition referred to in the letter seems, at this time, to be improbable…It would be feasible, but the mental reorganization of so large a group, fixed in habit, would seem too great an undertaking within the specified time.’’61
119Dunning and Hewlett may have stalled on accepting the 4D patent instead of rejecting it. Fuller insinuated as much to George Buffington, a banker he tried to interest in the project:
120121You undoubtedly are wondering about the outcome of the offer to the ALA…Following Mr. Hewlett’s suggestion I submitted it to Mr. Max Dunning…Mr. Dunning said that the Institute would need 3 or 4 years to even bring about its submission as a question…This of course precludes the possibility of its being accepted by them, though Mr. Dunning as also suggested by other architects who are interested, advised leaving the offer as a tantalizer for…8 months.62
123 Hewlett and Dunning succeeded in convincing Fuller to abandon his efforts to enlist the AIA as a partner in the 4D House project. The events at the convention should have forewarned him of this outcome. At the convention he did convince a few members of the soundness of his idea. He also realized that successful promotion of the project did not require sanction by the organization, although it might have helped to put the 4D House into production.
124 The AIA’s opposition to standardized design, and therefore to the 4D House, did give Fuller an unusual opportunity to transform a potential ally into a foe. Since the organization felt standardization was detrimental to the art of architecture and to character of design, Fuller was able to infer that its insistence on traditional qualities meant reliance upon traditional methods. He was then able to portray the AIA as a backward group ‘‘fixed in habit.’’ The fixed habit was traditional custom design built by traditional construction methods. Thus, Fuller was able to use the AIA’s opposition to standardization of design as a powerful tool in the engineering of the platform from which he advocated the advantages of the 4D House, his ideal, industrially reproduced dwelling.