All 2 entries tagged Architecture
View all 18 entries tagged Architecture on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Architecture at Technorati | There are no images tagged Architecture on this blog
May 02, 2006
Writing about web page /teamcolour/entry/a_architecture_module/
‘Classicism in style is potentially stultifying to both innovation and function’ (Tim Mowl). Is this a fair critique of the classical language of architecture?
When discussing classicism and its influence in the history of architecture, it is first necessary to state what the classical language of architecture is. Summerson states that ‘A classical building is one whose decorative elements derive directly or indirectly from the architectural vocabulary of the ancient world’ and these elements, for example the five orders, are easily recognizable. He goes onto claim that ‘the aim of classical architecture has always been to achieve a demonstrable harmony of parts’ . When an architect uses aspects of classical architecture in a new context classicism has the potential to stultify the innovation and function of the building. In most cases, architects simply use elements of the classical language of architecture, so that this problem doe not arise, but this raises the question ‘when is a classical building not a classical building?’
If all the aspects of classicism are adopted in the design of a building the function is not affected, yet the result is that the possibility of innovation is hindered. There was little variation in the architecture of the Roman Empire; the Romans did not build in different styles in different regions. This expressed the power of the Roman Empire and united all its colonies. The Maison Carrée at Nîmes (early 1st century AD), built under Augustus, is a key example; its layout, proportions and fluted Corinthian columns are exactly what was being built in Rome at the time. Whilst there was a lack of innovation in different regions of the Roman Empire, this was not because classicism was restricting; it was a conscious decision to employ one style.
Whilst the Romans used their style universally, they were able to develop it to suit a number of different buildings and purposes. Orders associated with temples were not discounted when designing secular buildings; instead they brought the orders in, ‘in the most conspicuous way possible’ because they were considered an integral part of the design of all classical buildings. By combining the simple architecture of the orders with more elaborate vaults, basilicas and arches, the language of architecture was changed and even raised. This can be seen when studying triumphal arches; these grand and dramatic monuments were introduced by the Romans to honour generals and men of status, for example the Arch of Constantine, 315 AD. They incorporated the classical orders; the central arch and two flanking arches were framed by columns that were placed on tall plinths, so as not to elongate the columns and distort their proportions. Monuments such as this show how the Romans themselves took classical language of architecture to develop a new classical form, proving that classicism is not stultifying to innovation or function.
The orders served no structural purpose for the Romans, yet they were an essential element of their architecture. Whilst they insisted on using the orders in all buildings, it was not limiting to the development of classical architecture, and thus it can be argued that it is not restricting when incorporated with other styles of architecture. During the Italian Renaissance, for example, architects continued the work of the Romans by further developing the inclusion of orders in secular buildings. In the Laurentian Library in San Lorenzo, Michelangelo treats the space as a sculpture; it is entirely decorative. The room is an arrangement of classical forms yet the classical elements are treated in an un–classical way. Michelangelo turns the columns into sculptures by placing them in niches, whilst the pilasters taper and have no known order, reinforcing the idea that Michelangelo was reinventing classical forms. As the architect simply employed classical motifs for decoration, it allowed him to be innovative and create a totally new way of decorating an interior space. Whilst the classical language of architecture was clearly not restricting for Michelangelo, it is possible to argue that the Laurentian Library was not classical, because he greatly changed both the appearance and function of the features of classicism.
Greek and Roman architecture ‘thinks of the building primarily as of a sculptural body’ . Adopting classicism therefore has the potential to stultify function, as an architect can become too involved in decoration and simply including classical features and motifs in his design. Michelangelo was successful in his design of the Laurentian Library because he was using the classical language of architecture in the way it had been used during antiquity; as sculpture.
Classicism is not stultifying to innovation or proportion if only certain aspects of it are adopted and then adapted, as can be seen in the majority of the architecture of the Italian Renaissance; ‘the great achievement of the Renaissance was not the strict imitation of Roman buildings … but the re–establishment of the grammar of antiquity as a universal discipline’ . This can be seen with Michelangelo’s Laurentian Library, yet there are countless other examples. The façade of San Miniato in Florence is defined as Romanesque; it reflects the basilican form, incorporates Corinthian columns on the exterior and Ionic inside, and it is proportionally correct. Borrowing these various features from Roman buildings and applying them to the façade allowed the architect to reflect the status of the guild; it drew a comparison between the church and the great temples of the Roman Empire.
Books such as Sebastiano Serlio’s L’Archittetura (1537–51) clearly explain the classical orders and how they should be used in building. This book was warmly welcomed and had a great influence on the architects of the sixteenth century. Palladio’s I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura was written in Italy in the same century, yet went on to become very inspirational in England in the seventeenth century. These works did not hinder innovation, however, as may be expected; instead they provided inspiration for architects, and explained the classical language of architecture so that they were then able to adapt this ancient style to suit their criteria.
Over the centuries, architects have been influenced by classicism and have used it as a major source, if not the major source, of inspiration for their works. Yet when they only adopt certain aspects of the classical language of architecture, it is debatable whether their buildings are classical. The Palatine Chapel in Aachen, (began around 790) was ‘[d]esigned to recall imperial Rome’ yet the architecture is a fusion of Roman and Byzantine; whilst the vaulted dome and columns provides a classical connection, the building itself is a ‘Byzantine type’ . The long loggia of columns at Robert Smythson’s Hardwick Hall in Derbyshire (began in 1596) is classical, yet the floors of the house increase in height as the building rises, and this is not a classical technique. Smythson has, therefore, been selective in his borrowings of the classical language, as Odo of Metz was when designing the Palatine Chapel.
In the case of the façade of the Assembly Building at Chandigarh, India, the proportions of the building can be described as classical but the building itself is not; it does not include any of the physical features of a classical temple or monument, such as the orders, a pediment or any forms of classical decoration. Classicism has therefore not stultified innovation or function for le Courbiser; he has simply been influenced by the harmony of classical proportion for the building’s façade. The façade is made up of a series of modular units and this careful spacing is classically inspired. This reference to classicism is emphasized by the walls that support the roof; viewed from the front they are reminiscent of columns supporting an entablature. Whilst the harmony of the Assembly Building is inspired by the classical language of architecture, it does not make the building classical; instead it includes classical elements.
During the nineteenth century architects chose not to limit themselves to only developing classical motifs; instead they attempted to incorporate features from every subsequent phase of the classical development into their art. Ornaments from Greek temples, an arrangement of columns from the Roman triumphal arch and elements from Florentine Mannerism are just some of the sources Cockerell was influenced by when designing the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Classicism has clearly not stultified the innovation of this building; instead it has helped the architect to be highly innovative. Again, however, it can be argued that the architect has selected classical elements but the building itself is not classical.
In conclusion, classicism is potentially stultifying if architects choose to stick to the rules rigidly; without developing the features used in classical buildings innovation is not possible. If instead an architect only adopts certain elements of the classical language, and applies them where they are appropriate and necessary, then classicism can aid the function of the building, and innovation is achieved. When this method is used, however, the building produced is not classical; it is simply an adaptation of the classical language of architecture.
“Classicism in style is potentially stultifying to both innovation and function” (Tim Mowl). Is this a fair critique of the classical language of architecture?
When assessing the question it is important to look at the fact that it is divided into three arguments. These include how classicism is potentially a problem, how classicism can be rendered inconsistent or redundant (stultifying) and how these factors contribute to the actual function and innovation of architecture. It is important to remember that classicism has been highly influential in architecture as it not only set down the basic principles of harmony and proportion as documented by Vitruvius but also due to the associations, such as power and status, provided by antiquity. This can be seen especially with the classical revival experienced with the Renaissance period, Neo–classicism and in present with modern buildings being fronted with classical motifs. It is the most recent past, commencing with the architecture of Germany and Italy from World War II to the present day that I would like to investigate and explore how these examples of architecture are affected by the issue of classicism.
It is hard to define what exactly classicism is as an architectural resource due to its being used by different architects, movements and leaders in ways that suits their aims and means, rather than using classical influence exactly as the Greeks or Romans would. In this way classical architecture has been broken down partially as with the technological innovations of the twentieth century the structural function of arches for example are left redundant as new materials such as iron and steel are being used to reinforce buildings and distribute weight. This can be seen in Rome’s “Esposizione Universale Roma” (EUR), a building from 1935 under Mussolini’s rule to expose the creation of his “new Roman Empire and partly to rekindle a new spirit of ‘heroism’…” . The EUR complex can be seen to be very classical in its architecture through the use of a square colonnade in Palazzo INA and the six sets of arches used on the Palazzo delle Civiltà del Lavoro. Yet, although these are classical features there is clear innovation as the colonnade is square instead of being on a usual curve as seen in Roman forums or at the Vatican in Rome. The arches used on the Palazzo delle Civiltà del Lavoro are without orders but left plain without applied decoration as would have been seen on the Colosseum. Therefore the classical ideal has been used but it has not been a stultifying factor as the architects have re–invented classicism by selecting the aspects that they want.
Yet, this is not the only example of how classicism has been altered as the Nazi leader Hitler, and the Fascist ruler Mussolini, used the classically designed buildings because of their association with the Roman Empire, therefore showing each leader’s consolidating their power by making a clear show that they too were building empires like the Romans. In this way the use of classical architecture has been somewhat abused as only the significance of what classicism represents is important for the functions of buildings produced, there is no architectural or structural need that can only be provided by classical architecture. Yet, this being said, the concept of using classicism as a form of propaganda was one used by the Romans themselves so it could, in fact, be seen as an inextricable part of the architecture. Therefore although the Nazi leaders only choose classical architecture for what it represents it is innovative, as an old form of architecture is re–invented to revive ideas of Roman power and status.
In contrast to this wanting to show this blatant show of supremacy we have the present day architect Quinlan Terry who intentionally moves away from the Modernist movement and looks back to classical architecture as a timeless way of design. Terry understands the idea of harmony and beauty that was hailed as the key to classical architecture as temple designs were based on harmonic proportions and were deemed perfect buildings, with the Parthenon being the “perfect [Doric] monument” By his own admission Terry acknowledges that classicism takes in its surroundings therefore seems to naturally evolve. In this way it should not be able to stultify function or innovation as it should allow for progression. This is true as it can be seen in his water–front complex, the Richmond Riverside Development. The latest addition, the brick and stucco building on the end of the terrace, seems to combine 18th century features of red brick, sash and casement windows, as well as being mixed with the five classical orders, showing it to partially explore the classical language of architecture.
Despite this, what Terry creates is more a classical illusion rather than a classical building as the underlying structure to the building is a steel frame due to the fact that sit is cheaper, stronger and quicker to set up. In this way although he gives a classical shell to the building, the actual structure is wholly modern. This can be seen as innovative as modern technology is incorporated with a classical front and it creates a more structurally sound building aiding the function to be able to hold a large amount of people. Yet, even with these factors the use of classicism across the waterside has left little room for a modern front to be included due to the fact that it would look completely out of place. Terry does add variety to the terrace as each building is different and seem to progress from a neighbouring design but the use of classical is left moderately redundant as it is purely aesthetic and no longer representing a building to a feat of engineering as it had back in antiquity, for example the Colosseum being architecturally magnificent with the ability to hold four storeys supported mainly through arches in a circular plan.
By looking to the past for inspiration classicism does seem to hinder progress as modern buildings that have not been so popular with the general public. The results of the Modernist Movement in architecture seem to dominate the minds of the public therefore not giving full consent for modern designs to be explored. Much like the classical buildings of the past modern architecture also has a lot to offer in both innovation and function as can be seen by Santiago Calatrava’s 1987 Lyon – Santolas TVG train station in which he uses the modern material of steel to produce a building that can cope with a substantial amount of people passing through as well as acting as a holding place for transport.
A building of this size could be created with classical proportion or design yet it would hinder the progress of modernity which has a considerable amount to offer with innovative design and use of materials. If classicism is continually used in construction we are certain of not losing the influence of the past but definitely endanger the loss of the present and future. Also as classicism has to evolve in order to continually fit in with the demands of modernity, there is the danger of it being so corrupted that it becomes an eye sore or “toy town pastiche” as so comically remarked by a critic looking at the works of Quinlan Terry at Richmond and his inadvertent propagation of the tawdry classicism arising from celebrity culture incorporated with architecture.
In reading Summerson’s “The Classical Language of Architecture” the book concludes with the question “…‘What has happened to the [classical] language [of architecture]?’ The generally accepted view is that the Modernist Movement killed it, and that is not far from wrong.” Yet, this is hard to believe that the classical of architecture has been lost as throughout history has been used in such a way that the idea of the classical has had to continually change and progress in order to satisfy the desires of the designer or the public. Therefore it can be seen that this necessity for change, will repeat itself, meaning that the classical language of architecture can not have died but merely fallen into submission until it is re–invented with new purpose, as well as innovation. It could be questioned that classicism itself may have disappeared with the amount of modifications that have been made, but how can classicism be defined when even from the Greeks to the Romans ideas of what was classical or what could be included were altered? Therefore, it can be seen that classicism can only be stultifying if it conforms to a fixed idea as it leaves no room for innovation or demands of function. This being said it has to be acknowledged that the classical language of architecture itself is not fixed and has been developed from Vitruvius to Serlio and Palladio, meaning that it too is evolving, leaving no way for it to be rendered redundant as long as it is part of a re–invention of the style.