In Hays article on Mies Van Der Rohe, there is a comparison of his work as lying directly between a dichotomy of pre-existing beliefs about architecture. On one side, architecture was viewed as a product of culture which reflected and glorified the dominant aspects of the time/space it inhabited. On the other, architecture was a purist practice of form, where the architect looked to create a work that directly referred to itself and only itself, instead of originating from historical references.
In the metropolis of the early 1900's, and indeed still today (although less pronounced), there was an overwhelming sense of diaspora and confusion as the new inhabitants of cities were bombarded from all sides with sound and visual stimuli. Many felt disconnected from their realm of culture, which can be seen in Dadaism. Gerog Simmel titled this affect nervenlebn,which produced a distinct sense of apathy and distanced attitude in citizens of metropolis cities. Van der Rohe created a building which, instead of imposing itself on the passerby, occupied its space quietly and reflected the surroundings. This created a silence and calm within a chaotic world.
Van der Rohe's building were all intended to be somewhat similar, although customized slightly to their locations. Because they generally reflected or absorbed their surroundings, they would always be participants in the current culture, always contemporary, always functional. The idea of the historical reference could be traced via a history of Van der Rohe's process and influences, but the buildings themselves seek to escape from such scrutiny.
In a departure from his general design of skyscrapers, the Barcelona Pavilion moves to the horizontal, using a variety of materials, beyond the usual glass, to create a freeflowing area. Materials reflect and mesh into each other, and provide the interpreter with a centerless, directionless area to explore as it seems natural. It is less about reflected the surroundings and more about exploring interior space within itself.