Architectural Model as Machine by Albert Smith

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page i

Architectural Model as Machine

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page ii

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page iii

Architectural Model as Machine A New View of Models from Antiquity to the Present Day

Albert C. Smith, PhD, RA

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page iv

Architectural Press An imprint of Elsevier Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 First published 2004 Copyright © 2004, Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, England W1T 4LP. Applications for the copyright holder’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (44) 1865 843830, fax: (44) 1865 853333, e-mail: [email protected]. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier homepage (http://www.elsevier.com), by selecting ‘Customer Support’ and then ‘Obtaining Permissions’

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 0 7506 5634 4 For information on all Architectural Press publications visit our website at www.architecturalpress.com

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain

Working together to grow libraries in developing countries www.elsevier.com | www.bookaid.org | www.sabre.org

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page v

Contents Preface

vii

Acknowledgments

viii

Illustrations

ix

Introduction

xv

1 Define/Divine/Design

1

2 The changing mechanism of the scale model

39

3 Scale model as machine

61

4 Machine as scale model machine

69

5 Pandora and the modern scale model machine

89

Bibliography

127

Index

133

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page vi

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page vii

Preface Architectural Model as Machine offers a unique view of the architectural scale model’s varying uses as a thinking and defining mechanism for understanding and demonstrating architectural concepts. Interestingly, compared to the subject of architectural drawings, little specific research has been done about the meaning of architectural models. When one considers the important position scale models have maintained in the architectural process for centuries, this seems quite strange. This book attempts to rectify this situation by presenting a broad-based discussion of the representational qualities of the architectural scale model. Scale models are a basic mechanism used to understand, explore and conceptualize architecture. Yet in architecture studios across the country, students and professionals are constantly requesting additional information about the use and meaning of models in the design process. Surprisingly, though my colleagues and I can refer to several ‘picture’ or ‘how to build’ books, little exists concerning the concepts of why and how architectural scale models are created. For the past decade I have collected material and written on the theory of architectural scale models to bring new understanding to this important subject. I believe Architectural Model as Machine offers a unique view of the architectural scale model’s varying uses as a thinking and defining mechanism for understanding and demonstrating architectural concepts. I am interested in ‘why’ and not the ‘how to’ of the methods architects use in design media. Often architects cannot and do not explain their work, especially their design processes, consequently it is necessary to extrapolate ideas and meaning from the artifacts they leave behind. My project depends upon artifacts of the media that architects use to think. I am proposing to study these artifacts across a range of time periods. My methodology is to use comparison and speculation across architectural movements to question the uses of media in design and to find intent and meaning in the context. My research is about translation and about cross-referencing conceptual thinking, from period to historical period and across disciplines. I believe it possible to discuss architectural ideas, indications of meaning and intention through the study of specific design media. The artifacts speak about why they were conceived and how they were used to help architects think through design, both as a medium and as a process. This book looks at architectural models as mechanisms used for thinking about and defining future buildings and cultural issues. In this work models are viewed as a basic scaling mechanism used to understand, explore and conceptualize architecture. This research takes the position that architectural scale models are created not only as a means of designing buildings, but also partake in defining a culture’s cosmos. Though specific models from different historical periods may physically appear quite similar, contextually, they can play different roles. Through the use of analogy and metaphor, architectural scale models offer architects an understandable way with which to develop and define their concepts. Albert C. Smith

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page viii

Acknowledgments This book was supported by a grant from the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts. I would also like to thank the University of Utah for supporting this project through a Faculty Research Grant. The following people should be thanked for their support and assistance in preparing this book: my wife Kendra Schank Smith, my research assistants, Shaun Moon and Henrietta Oyula and finally Marco Frascari for his wonderful guidance.

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page ix

Illustrations 1

2 3 4 5

6

7

8

1.1 1.2

Futurama model from 1939 World’s Fair. Visitors to General Motors ‘Futurama’ exhibit. Original caption: 4/22/1939 New York, NY: Seeing the world of tomorrow. Here is a view of the ‘Futurama’ feature of the General Motors highways and horizons exhibit at the New York World’s fair, showing how visitors will view the world of tomorrow from comfortable moving sound chairs while touring a vast scale model of the American countryside, covering more than 3500 square feet. The ‘Futurama’ is the largest scale model ever constructed, it includes over 500,000 buildings and houses, over a million trees and 50,000 motor vehicles, many of which will be in motion. © Bettmann/CORBIS. Cave painting of a man brandishing a spear. © Morton Beebe, S.F./CORBIS. We Can Do It! Rosie the Riveter. War Production Co-Ordinating Committee. Artist: J. Howard Miller. J. Robert Oppenheimer talking with Edward Murrow. © Bettmann/CORBIS. Trisonic wind tunnel at the Marshall Space Flight Center. An engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) observes a model of the space shuttle Orbiter being tested in the MSFC’s 14  14-Inch Trisonic wind tunnel. Photograph: Courtesy NASA. Saturn rocket engine test bed. A modified space shuttle main engine is static fired at Marshall’s technology test bed. Photograph: Courtesy NASA. Engineering type model. A computer model for the protein crystal trypanathione reductase, which is being studied in an effort to devise a treatment for Chaga’s disease, a devastating illness caused by a parasite. Photograph: Courtesy NASA. Model of embassy to be built in London by E. Saarinen. Finnish-born architect Eero Saarinen points to features of a scale model of the embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square. © Bettmann/CORBIS. Prometheus brings fire from the heavens. Prometheus brings fire from the heavens to humanity. Undated illustration. © Bettmann/CORBIS. Undergraduate student model. Model of a virtual technology dance studio by Brycen Allison developed in a studio taught by Albert C. Smith.

xv xvi xviii xviii

xix

xix

xx

xxi 1 2

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page x

Illustrations

1.3

1.4

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26

2.1 x

Undergraduate student model. Model of a virtual technology dance studio by Brian Parker developed in a studio taught by Albert C. Smith. Undergraduate student model. Model of a virtual technology dance studio by Eduardo Santamaria developed in a studio taught by Albert C. Smith. Image of a hunter-gatherer structure. Photograph courtesy of Professor James O’Connell, University of Utah. Urn in the shape of a hut. ©Archivo Iconografico, S.A./CORBIS. Pyramids of Giza. © Royalty-Free/CORBIS. Egyptian funerary model: Cattle stable. All rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Egyptian funerary model: Bakery. All rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Egyptian funerary model: Granary shop. All rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Egyptian funerary model: Butcher shop. All rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Egyptian funerary model: Garden. All rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Exterior of the Propylaea and the Parthenon. © Royalty-Free/CORBIS. Greek paradeigma. Computer model created by Shaun Moon based on information from ‘Greek Architects at Work,’ by J.J. Coulton. The Nashville parthenon. © Mark E. Gibson/CORBIS. Interior of Pantheon. Photograph by author. Vitruvian siege machine/De architectura libri deci. © CORBIS. Vitruvian machine/De architectura libri deci. © CORBIS. Façade of the cathedral of Notre Dame. © Royalty-Free/CORBIS. Royal Abbey at St Denis. Photograph by author. Villard de Honnecourt. © The Bridgeman Art Library International. Villard de Honnecourt: Lion and porcupine. © The Bridgeman Art Library International. Giovanni de’ Medici model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore. Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. Giovanni Antonio Dosio, model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore. Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. Academy of Design, model of façade for S. Maria del Fiore. Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. Temple of Jerusalem/Temple model. A model of the Temple as it appeared in the time of Herod the Great, part of a model of Jerusalem at the Holyland Hotel, in Jerusalem, Israel. © Richard T. Nowitz/CORBIS. Roman relief of Daedalus and Icarus. © Bettmann/CORBIS.

2

2 3 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 10 12 14 16 17 21 22 23 24 25 25 26

30 39

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page xi

Illustrations

2.2

Undergraduate student’s model. From a studio taught by Kendra Schank Smith. 2.3 Undergraduate student’s model. From a studio taught by Kendra Schank Smith. 2.4 Undergraduate student’s model. From a studio taught by Kendra Schank Smith. 2.5 Theseus and the Minotaur mosaic in the House of the Labyrinth at Pompeii. © Mimmo Jodice/CORBIS. 2.6 Plato’s cave. (Oil on panel) by Flemish School, (16th century). Credit: Musee de la Chartreuse, Douai, France/Giraudon-Bridgeman Art Library. 2.7 Artifiiosi et cvriosi moti. © CORBIS. 2.8 House X. Photograph courtesy, Eisenman Architects. 2.9 House X. Photograph courtesy, Eisenman Architects. 2.10 House X. Photograph courtesy, Eisenman Architects. 2.11 De architectura libri deci. © CORBIS. 2.12 Model for the reconstruction of St Peter’s. Model for the reconstruction of St Peter’s in Rome by Sangallo (under Pope Clement XI). Undated. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 3.1 Janus, Roman god of doorways after whom the first month of the year was named. Engraving. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 3.2 Le Corbusier with an architectural model. French architect Le Corbusier with an architectural model of his Villa Savoye. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 3.3 Thales of Miletus. Artist French School, (17th century). Location Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, France. Medium engraving, 17th century, French, © Giraudon/Bridgeman Art Library. 3.4 Balance and weights. © CORBIS. 3.5 IBM processing machine. Photograph: Courtesy NASA. 3.6 Toy as agent of magic, marvel and fantasy. Portrait of two little boys playing with tinker toys. © CORBIS. 3.7 Nostrodamus making calculations. Astronomer making astronomical calculations. Undated copper engraving. Nostrodamus. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 3.8 Al Smith and the Empire State Building model. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 4.1 Pygmalion and Galatea. © Christie’s Images/CORBIS. 4.2 An undergraduate student model built by Sam Bawden. 4.3 An undergraduate student model built by Jason Green. 4.4 Ptolemy’s Universe, illustrated. Map based on the geography of Ptolemy. © Royalty-Free/CORBIS. 4.5 Portrait of Nicolaus Copernicus, (1473–1543), Polish astronomer. Undated woodcut. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 4.6 Statue of Bruno. Photograph by author.

40 40 40 43

46 48 49 49 49 51

57 61

61

62 63 63 64

65 67 69 70 70 71 71 72 xi

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page xii

Illustrations

4.7 4.8

4.9 4.10 4.11

4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

5.8 5.9

5.10

5.11

xii

Drawing Automayon by Jacquet Droz. © Bettmann/CORBIS. Automated chess player or robot. An automated chess player with the mechanical workings exposed in the cabinet underneath. An early automaton or chess playing robot. © Bettmann/CORBIS. Students in front of the École des Beaux Arts, Paris, France. Photograph by author. Goering with a model of the Berlin airport. Hermann Goering and other German officials examine a model of Templehof Airport. © CORBIS. Anarchist militia in Barcelona. Anarchist militia from the National Confederation of Labour wave their flags and rifles for the camera in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS. Close-up of military tank. © CORBIS. Marcel Duchamp playing chess and smoking pipe. Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Play/Young boy building miniature log cabin. © Jim Erickson/CORBIS. Frank Lloyd Wright. World-famous architect points with his cane to a model of the Price Tower in Oklahoma. © Bettmann/CORBIS. Pandora’s box. A 1731 engraving of Pandora’s box by Bernard Picart. © Historical Picture Archive/CORBIS. Baker test, Bikini Atoll. Photograph: US Department of Energy. Sagrada Familia (Church of the Holy Family) Barcelona by Antonio Gaudi y Cornet. Photograph by author. An example of Gaudi’s plaster study models. Photograph by author. An example of Gaudi’s study models created by hanging chains. Photograph by author. A Gaudi study model of hanging ropes and weights. Photograph by author. The model workshop located in Sagrada Familia. The construction of Sagrada Familia continues though the rebuilding or recreation of the original models developed by Antonio Gaudi y Cornet. Photograph by author. The model workshop located in Sagrada Familia. Photograph by author. Tatlin’s model of the Monument to the Third International. The model at an exhibition in Moscow in 1920, with Tatlin in the foreground holding a pipe, illustration from Ivan Puni’s book Tatlin (Protiv kubizma), 1921 (litho). Private collection/Bridgeman Art Library. Tatlin’s Tower photomontage by El Lissitzky. A 1922 collage and drawing by El Lissitzki of, ‘Tatlin Working on the Monument to the Third International’. Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Alchemist engraving ‘Emblema’. Emblem 21 from the Atalanta Fugiens by Michael Maiers. The image is captioned entitled ‘Make a circle around a man and woman, then a square, now a triangle; make a circle, and you will have the Philosophers’ Stone.’ Courtesy: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.

74

74 76 78

79 81 82 84 85 89 90 91 91 92 95

96 97

98

101

101

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page xiii

Illustrations

5.12 Tatlin’s Tower under construction. 5.13 Proun # 10 by E. L. Lissitzki, © Bridgeman Art Library. 5.14 Model of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs. Designed by Louis I. Kahn, this unbuilt memorial was to be located in New York City. The Louis I. Kahn Collection. University of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 5.15 Model of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs. The Louis I. Kahn Collection. University of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 5.16 Sketch of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs. The Louis I. Kahn Collection. University of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 5.17 Drawing, Vertical II, by Daniel Libeskind. From Chamber Works Series. Copyright, Daniel Libeskind. 5.18 Drawing, Horizontal 4, by Daniel Libeskind. From Chamber Works Series. Copyright, Daniel Libeskind. 5.19 Reading machine, by Daniel Libeskind. Photograph: Hélène Binet. 5.20 Memory machine, by Daniel Libeskind. Photograph: Hélène Binet. 5.21 Writing machine, by Daniel Libeskind. Photograph: Hélène Binet.

102 103

108

109

111 113 114 119 120 120

Plate 1

Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate

Plate Plate

Steven Holl holding model. Architect Steven Holl is one of the principals at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The company is working on plans to rebuild at Ground Zero, where the Twin Towers were destroyed in the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001. Other team principals on the project are: Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, and Charles Gwathmey. © Richard Schulman/CORBIS. 2 The painting of Michelangelo Presenting Model to the Pope. Courtesy: Casa Buonarroti, Via Ghibellina n. 70, 50122 Firenze. 3 Filippo Brunelleschi (?), wooden model for the cathedral lantern. Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. 4 Cigoli, model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore. Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. 5 The surviving parts of a model of the cathedral. Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. 6 House X. Photograph courtesy, Eisenman Architects, 41 West 25th Street, New York, NY 10010. 7 Bible moralisee. © Francis G. Mayer/CORBIS. 8 Maison Carrée columns and Carré d’Art. Architect Sir Norman Foster designed the Carré d’Art museum across the street from the Maison Carrée in Nimes. © SETBOUN/CORBIS. 9 Rose window in French cathedral. © CORBIS 10 Daniel Libeskind and his model of World Trade Center. Architect Daniel Libeskind from Studio Daniel Libeskind xiii

ALBE-FM.qxd 22/7/04 9:44 PM Page xiv

Illustrations

Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate

xiv

11 12 13 14 15 16

(C) shows New York Governor George Pataki (R) and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (L) his model plans for the development of the World Trade Center site in New York that was chosen as the winning design on 27 February 2003. The plan includes a spire rising 1776 feet making it the tallest building in the world. The former World Trade Center towers were destroyed in the 11 September 2001 attacks. REUTERS/Mike Segar. © Reuters NewMedia Inc./CORBIS. Architectural model from the office of Frank Gehry. Architectural model from the office of Frank Gehry. Architectural model from the office of Morphosis. Architectural model of the city edge Mies Memorial. Architectural model from the office of Renzo Piano. Architectural model from the office of Kisho Kurokawa.

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:06 PM Page xv

Introduction

1 Futurama model World’s Fair

Long ago, before anyone built their first dwelling, there lived a very intelligent human. One day, the human was walking in the woods and found a marvelous stick. The stick (Figure 2) was long – about as long as the human was tall. It was straight, strong, and pointed at one end. There was something about this particular stick that made the human want to pick it up and keep it. Rather quickly the human found that the stick could be used as a staff to facilitate walking. It was also useful in digging for delicious roots and helpful in knocking down berries from high branches. Once the human, when attacked by a vicious animal, found that the stick could be used for defense. The human realized the stick made a wonderful and controllable extension of the hand. The stick was a tool, and a most prized possession. Still wandering, the human arrived in a large, pleasant clearing and decided to rest. Not finding a tree close by against which to lean the stick, the human decided to drive it

from

1939

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:06 PM Page xvi

Introduction

2 Cave painting of a man brandishing a spear

xvi

directly into the ground. All day long the human rested and watched the shadow of the stick change. The once controllable stick was beginning to raise wondrous, but not necessarily easily understandable, questions about the universe. The stick took on a life of its own; it presented a better way of understanding the sun, creating questions about a vast chaotic universe. It changed from a tool into a scaling machine and seemed to encourage the possibility of understanding the measure of things. From then on, whenever the human met other humans, the stick would be ceremoniously thrust into the ground. They, then, were also compelled to think about their relationship to their universe and to make a variety of attempts at further explanation. The stick, both a scale model and a machine, possessed the most interesting and powerful ability to take on a life of its own. The stick offered the human the ability to begin formulating an understandable measurement for defining the invisible unknown. I would like to argue that architectural scale models (Plate 1) operate in a similar way as the marvelous stick. I propose that architectural scale models are typically used as thinking mechanisms for defining, and that these models differ from instruments such as transits, yardsticks or measuring cups whose specific measurements are already well defined. The architectural scale model is created not only as a means of designing our life-sustaining buildings, but also partakes in defining a culture’s universe. Though specific scale models from different historical periods may physically appear quite similar, there can be major differences as to what these models were seen as defining. Through the use of visual analogy and constructive metaphor, architectural models serve as measuring mechanisms extending the architect’s intellectual might in an attempt to understand a complex and confusing whole. The scale model is a mechanism for creating definition, mediating between perceived chaos and human designs.1 Positioned in the marginal area between lifelessness and the uncanny, the visible and the invisible, the architectural model appears to offer architects an understandable way with which to develop and define their concepts.2 John W. Miller writes, ‘. . . by what method therefore can the study of philosophy proceed? . . . Only through the definition of term.’3 We have noted that the architectural model is used to create definition. But what do we mean by definition? The Oxford English Dictionary writes that the etymology of the word ‘definition’ comes from the Latin word ‘definire’

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:06 PM Page xvii

Introduction

which means the setting of bounds or limits. To define something is to create boundaries in order to designate its exact meaning. It is interesting to note that the word ‘designate’ is closely related to the word ‘design’, which means to mark out. There are a great many rules used for creating a good definition. A key example of these rules points out that a definition must indicate the essential characteristics of the thing being defined. A thing can be a material or inanimate object. It can be a matter of concern, deed, act or accomplishment that exists as a separate entity. Things can be distinguished from what is purely an object of thought. A thing need not be precisely designated. It can be an artistic composition and as such, an architectural scale model can be a thing; a thing used for creating definition. Some of the characteristics of definition include the following issues. A definition is the meaning of a thing or the meaning intended by the user offering a description of its fundamental characteristics. The key function of definition is to present meaning for things that are not clearly understood, in a context of things that are clearly understood. Definitions increase knowledge and impart information. They attempt to prevent ambiguity, imprecision and complexity. They are resolutions; declared intentions indicating both how to use a thing in a specific manner and how the thing is used.4 When discussing the transitory qualities of definition, John W. Miller points out that, ‘A static definition is neither experimentally nor logically possible . . . we are compelled therefore to search for a relative permanence, and we find that definition as a whole changes in respect to other definitions.’5 Architectural scale models (Plate 2) can help eliminate problems in perceiving a future building. They can be less ambiguous than drawings. According to Stanford Hohauser, architectural models are the most easily understood presentational technique.6 They are useful in allowing architects to perceive their developing concepts more clearly. Even though architects are typically experienced in spatial thinking, their clients are generally not. Models are helpful in allowing clients to more clearly perceive a potential design. They can directly communicate ideas to clients as well as the public without the necessity of explaining complicated and confusing technical drawings. Compared to the subject of architectural drawings, little specific study exists about what architectural scale models represent. This is very strange considering how important scale models have been in the architectural process for centuries. xvii

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xviii

Introduction

3 We Can Do It! Rosie the Riveter

4 J. Robert Oppenheimer talking with Edward Murrow

xviii

I will begin to explore this situation by creating relative definitive boundaries around the representational qualities of the architectural scale model. Architectural scale models are an important part of the design process.7 They take the place of words and may present a design more effectively than pictures. It may be cliché to state that a picture is worth a thousand words, but it could be argued that a model can be worth at least a thousand pictures. Models are used to view shadows, massing of forms, complicated intersections and a variety of other issues concerning the design of future buildings. Models are used to visualize elaborate shape and new design forms, allowing difficult spatial problems to be more thoroughly and effectively studied three dimensionally. It is generally quicker to solve such design problems using a model than with an already completed building or by drafting complicated geometrical projections. Now I would like to discuss several important concepts about scale. To many architects, scale simply means a system of ordered marks arranged at fixed intervals that are used as a standard of reference in measurement.8 Scale allows the architect a means for climbing towards a definition, developing a balance or medium between a known and an unknown, creating a standard with which to refer and a way of peeling away to reveal that which is unseen. For most readers the concept of the model has wideranging implications. An outstanding citizen (Figure 3), a miniature version of an aircraft, a mathematical formula or a beautiful woman in the fashion industry are all forms of models. These varying definitions can cause confusion when considering the specific use of a model within a field such as architecture. To clarify this ambiguity we should consider the following four categories of models: (1) mathematical, (2) analog, (3) qualitative, and (4) engineering. Though none of these categories is the subject of this study, describing them helps to define more clearly what lies within the scope of this discussion. Mathematical modeling (Figure 4) is generally concerned with natural systems and formal mathematical representation. Einstein’s famous formula E  MC2 or an engineering formula describing the stress on a loaded beam are mathematical models. Describing mathematical models John Casti writes, ‘[A] model means an encapsulation of some slice of the real world within the confines of the relationship constituting a formal mathematical system. Thus, a model is a mathematical

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xix

Introduction

representation of the modeler’s reality . . .’9 For Casti, the mathematician, mathematics are the appropriate form for modeling. Mathematical modeling plays several roles in the architectural process, though it is not the focus of this study. Miniature ship hulls built for testing in tanks or water basins and model airplanes used in wind tunnels (Figure 5) are known as analog models. The term ‘analog model’ refers to a specific category of model and should not be confused with the broader concept that models can be analogous. These types of models are used to demonstrate known quantitative relations among governing parameters. Analog models generally employ already established functional relationships and are not used to discover unknown relationships. Today analog modeling is more typically performed through the use of computers.10 Though architects occasionally make use of analog models, this category of model is also outside the scope of this inquiry. Mock-ups, prototypes and test beds (Figure 6) can all be seen as forms of qualitative models. John Schuring, in his

5 Trisonic wind tunnel at the Marshall Space Flight Center

6 Saturn rocket engine test bed

xix

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xx

Introduction

7 Engineering type model

xx

book Scale Modeling in Engineering, writes that qualitative models, ‘. . . skirt or even penetrate the domain of precise numbers and functional relations without, however, leaving the qualitative domain.’11 In special cases and usually through the use of a consultant, architects utilize such models in order to study essential attributes of a specific object. Specific examples of qualitative models would include a scale model of a highrise exposed to smoke streamers as a means of visualizing potential wind vortex patterns or a cardboard model of a frame structure created to help assess its reaction under a load.12 Engineering scale models (Figure 7) are another category of model, described by Shuring as, ‘. . . experimental models structured to mirror the true physical behavior of an original phenomenon, or a prototype.’13 Schuring further describes these scale models as valid substitutes for systems that cannot be understood at the prototype level. He writes of these models, ‘If scaled correctly, deflections, deformations, speeds, forces, accelerations, energies, temperatures, electric currents, magnetic fields, and a host of other relevant quantities measured on the scale model permits prediction of the corresponding quantities of the prototype design.’14 These models facilitate both the understanding of fundamentals and the design of engineering hardware. A final category of model, and the one of major concern for this study, is a relatively subjective model. This category includes the conceptual models developed by philosophers or sociologists that reflect individual views of human nature and society. The subjective model is one that is derived from the mind and not from external objective sources.15 Schuring writes that, ‘Architectural and toy models, however high their fidelity, are judged subjectively, that is without scientific exactness . . .’16 For Shuring, these models lack the exactness and strength of scientific research for they are judged by individuals, not by objective measure. I believe it important to support Shuring’s position and will approach the architectural model as relatively subjective in character. If it is accepted that architectural models are judged by individuals and not by objective reasoning, then how can they be defined? It is necessary to begin by asking the question – What does the architectural model represent? Here it is essential to consider what a representation actually is. A representation can be an image, likeness or reproduction in which some manner of a thing is presented to the mind or imagination.

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxi

Introduction

Mimes offer a good example of a representation, for they attempt to show a motion or an action with an element or a dimension missing. A representation can be seen as something that stands for something else or it can be seen as an imitation with a change. In his writing, Richard Wollheim points out that what a representation is being ‘seen as’ is connected with the intentions of the designer. I would like to relate the notion of architectural representation to the concepts of analogy and metaphor, which are used to refer to greater issues beyond simply a future building. I take the position that philosophically-based representation must be distinguished from psychologically or scientificallybased representation. The representational qualities of the architectural model will be viewed as primarily philosophical in nature. The architectural scale model (Figure 8) should be viewed as a mechanism for creating definition, mediating between chaos and humanity’s designs. It is a mechanism that helps architects develop an understandable scale with which to measure the unknown thing, such as a future building. The architectural model machine should be considered a scale device, which helps extend an architect’s intellectual might in an attempt to understand, define, and measure various issues. I propose that there are two types of architectural models. The first is the architectural reference standard model, which refers to the established rules against which to measure. The second is the architectural scale model machine which is one of the mechanisms humans create to measure and test their various concepts of the invisible. The architectural small-scale model machine serves as a device on which to project thoughts in an attempt to develop the perfect design (an attempt at a true definition of the invisible). The scale model provides architects with a mechanism by which they can test and re-examine their ideas. Sometimes, however, the projection of thoughts on to the scale model machine can make it appear to take on a life of its own. This happens in the realm of our imagination. Aristotle (De Memoria, 449631) believed that the imagination served as a mediation and that the soul never thinks without an image. For Hume, the imagination was also a mediation between ideas of memory and judgment. From Aristotle to Kant, imagining is seen as a mediating or middle-range power. This is the area in which the scale model machine dwells. In this

8 Model of embassy to be built in London by E. Saarinen

xxi

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxii

Introduction

way the scale model is a machine for imagining, for developing the free associations needed to develop new ideas. To be useful for architects, the free associations reflected from the scale model machine need to be controlled. This control comes from the relationship architects have with their reference standard. If the reference standard is too loosely controlled, the message received from the scale model machine will appear uncanny or overly spontaneous. Conversely, if the reference standard is too tightly controlled then the message reflected from the scale model machine will appear lifeless. The scale model machine is the mode in which the manner (control of society) is measured. By understanding the manner of the scale model machine it becomes possible to begin to comprehend what is being measured. What is reflected in the small-scale model machine is the architect’s relationship with the manner (modernity) and the current concepts of the invisible. During the Gothic period, God (as defined by the Church hierarchy) was generally accepted as the main controlling measure. Consequently, imitation of nature (God’s perfect model) was the prime objective of the architect. However, during the Renaissance there was a lessening of the control maintained by the reference standard, which was still tightly defined by the church. A renewed interest in antiquity and the philosophy of humanism presented architects and artists with a new, less restricted ability to interpret the prevailing reference standards. Architects began to be allowed a certain freedom in the development of the measure. Although still under control, the architectural scale model machine reflected this new freedom to create new interpretations of an already well-defined reference standard. For example, it is well known that a major reason Michelangelo built his model of St Peter’s was because he needed to visibly explain the future dome to the Pope. During the period of Russian constructivism, architects developed their small-scale model machines under a new, developing but trusted reference standard. In the development of this new reference standard, the small-scale model machine played an important role in defining the emerging cosmos. However, since the reference standard was not yet well defined, the small-scale model machine was not always under control. This lack of control may have been responsible for the downfall of the mechanism of the Russian constructivist scale xxii

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxiii

Introduction

model, such as Tatlin’s Tower, and its replacement with the seemingly safer and more governable neoclassical model. The modern condition, as illustrated by the small plexiglass models of Louis Kahn’s Jewish War Memorial, points to doubts concerning the ability of architects to control the scale model machines using past definitions of the reference standard. Daniel Libeskind’s scale model machines offer an experiment in what happens if all our reference standards are deconstructed apparently creating a loss of control over the message of the small-scale model machine.17 Libeskind finds this condition difficult to maintain. In the end, he constructs his three scale model machines (lessons in architecture), which offer an understandable framework within which Libeskind can reconstruct his relationship with reference standards. This work takes the position that the actual physical appearance of our architectural small-scale models has not changed. What has changed is humanity’s outlook as to what the scale model machine is measuring and defining. According to John William Miller, a key problem of philosophy is the definition of a thing. He believes that the study of philosophy must proceed only through the definition of terms. The ‘thing’ which this investigation will attempt to define is the meaning of the architectural model. Again we are reminded of Miller’s position concerning the difficulty of maintaining static definitions and that we can only search for a relative permanence.18 The reason I believe Miller’s point is important is because I would like the reader to also reflect on what has remained relatively permanent and what has changed regarding the architectural model as a form of representation. Architects use models to think about and create future buildings.19 If the reader will consider the future building as also a form of model, then the building itself can be seen as the cause for thinking about something greater. Also, consider that the scale model not only compels the architect to think about a future building, but also serves as a conduit for thinking about and creating definitions. In future chapters, I will discuss selected key examples of current and historical models and their formative representational theories. The examples will be used to present, analyze and interpret specific points concerning architectural models. These interpretations are based on a flexible hermeneutic which regards history as an open-ended series of narratives. The reader should view the use of historical models in this way. The use of xxiii

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxiv

Introduction

historical examples should not be seen as an attempt to list the extensive inventory of architectural models. Rather this study should be considered as similar to a string of pearls, with each pearl representing a specific concept and the connecting string representing the overall search for a relative definition concerning the architectural model as a form of representation.20 I would like to propose the following analogy as a way to view the organization of this book. North of Atlanta, in the library of a geriatric center, exists a particular square window that overlooks a child’s playground. Diagonal mullions divide this window, like the letter X, creating an intercrossing or decussation in its center. The left side of the window reflects the right side and the top of the window reflects the bottom. The chapters in this book are structured in a similar way. Each chapter, like the panes of glass, can stand alone, but reflects upon the others through the intercrossing or chiasm created by defining the architectural model and the concept that the architectural model defines.21 Each chapter proposes that the scale model reflects the standard of its maker. Chapters 1 and 5 reflect upon each other and on specific past and present architectural models. Chapters 2 and 4 reflect upon each other and involve critical issues of the past and present. Chapter 3 most directly deals with definition and etymology, and serves as the previously mentioned intercrossing or decussation. This study’s position concerning the relativity of definition has already been noted. Like definitions, etymologies are relative and should not be considered fully reliable. H.G. Gadamer writes, ‘[T]hey [etymologies] are abstractions achieved not by language but by linguistic science, and can never be wholly verified by language itself: that is by actual usage. Hence, when etymologies are right they are not proofs but achievements preparatory to conceptual analysis, and only in such analysis do they obtain a firm foundation.’22 Chapter 3 is placed in its central location for this reason. When combined with a surrounding investigation, definitions and etymologies can allow the subject of the architectural model to be viewed in new and unusual ways. The chapters of this investigation are organized as follows. The first chapter discusses specific historic architectural scale models to reveal how they were used as mechanisms for thinking about design. It points out that, traditionally, humans have attempted to develop understandable measurements of nature through their scale model mechanisms. Similar to the individual pearls of a necklace, the first chapter makes a series xxiv

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxv

Introduction

of separate connections between the scale model and a concept. It begins by establishing a link between the Egyptian scale model and magic. It will then point to the relationship between the Greek paradigma scale model and a paradigm. The chapter will move to the Roman scale model, as described by Vitruvius, and the machine. The section on the medieval architectural scale model will discuss the debate between the leadership of the church and the craftsman architect concerning who would be allowed to interpret the message mechanism of the architectural scale model. The chapter then will discuss the use of the Renaissance scale model as described by Alberti. Finally, the Temple of Jerusalem is discussed as an architectural scale model that attempts to define the concept of the divine (both the good and the foretelling) through design. The second chapter is a critical review of the shifting representational qualities of the traditional architectural scale model. It begins by pointing to the myth of the Greek architect/craftsman Daedalus who maintained an important and persuasive position in developing the rituals of western society.23 The craftsmen of western society controlled the skills necessary for creating the mechanisms that greatly affected the daily rituals of humankind. The philosopher Plato (Book X of the Republic) appears concerned that craftsmen maintained the ability to create illusions of reality. However, as the philosopher Aristotle points out, mechanical skills, such as those required to create scale models, were indispensable for overcoming problems caused by nature. The architect Vitruvius (BI. c.1, Architecture in Ten Books) believed the way to creating improved architectural models lay with an educated craftsman who understood both the theory and practice of mechanisms.24 Christianity recalibrated the prevailing view of the ideal by placing past methods of measuring and defining the truth in question. In this chapter, the Christian acceptance of icons as forms of scale models is used as an example to describe the division between theory requiring education, and practice requiring craft. During the Renaissance, shifts in politics and economics, and a renewed access to classical thought, such as that of Aristotle and Vitruvius, once again created the need for an educated craftsman, a mason who knew Latin: the architect. The third chapter defines how the scale model offers architects a key mechanism for implementing their designs. This chapter discusses several important issues. First, the architectural scale model offers the architect the perceived xxv

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxvi

Introduction

ability to interpret and define the limits, basic qualities and nature of the reference standards through the thinking mechanism of the small-scale model and finally the completed building. A machine (a mechanism) can be a structural or constructed thing, which is why many architects consider a building a machine. Second, the architectural scale model typically offers a representation of a possible future of an even larger machine. Third, the architectural scale model machine is a measuring device which helps extend the architect’s ability to understand and define (set limits, boundaries) through design. Fourth, the architectural scale model is a thinking mechanism for implementing definition, mediating between perceived chaos and human designs. Finally, the scale model is cast in the role of being a thinking mechanism for definition, allowing an implementation of an understandable scale within which to develop narratives, myths, and buildings. Additionally, Chapter 3 discusses two types of architectural models: what remains is the invisible world of the ideal (which has historically been considered divine, as in the work of God, or having the nature or condition of being perfect) and the scale model machine (the attempt at divining or foretelling the future). These two meanings of the word divine are closely related. It is through the architect’s attempt to reproduce the powers of the divine that the analogies and metaphors required in developing the scale model machine are created. Humans build small-scale architectural models not only to foretell future buildings but also to mark out plans for an overall attempt to define the supreme or ultimate reality. The model machine provides humans with an understandable scale from which they can project and develop the measurements needed for defining the reference standards and, finally, the invisible. Chapter 4 is a critical analysis of the representational condition of the modern scale model machine. It proposes that the rules of the game (the reference standards) are human created, and therefore not surprisingly imperfect, as they always have been. These concerns may point to current fears that humanity is losing faith in the ability to control scale model mechanisms through reference standards. However, if humankind is not to become a victim of a technology spinning out of control then architects must remain responsible for regulating and governing the machines. These regulations are difficult to develop without a faith that humankind may eventually define the unknown or the invisible. xxvi

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxvii

Introduction

The creation of the labyrinth by Daedalus may be connected with the creation of architectural scale models. For example, Penelope Reed Doob, in her book The Idea of the Labyrinth, notes that the labyrinth was used as a key model in the design of the Gothic cathedral.25 Actual pavement carvings of labyrinths, which can be seen as symbolic of the Christian’s search for faith, were included in the design of many Gothic cathedrals.26 Doob writes that, ‘Almost any church labyrinth, then, might be interpreted as signifying the marvelously articulated complexity of the building that contains it.’27 Geoffrey Chaucer makes an interesting connection between architecture, literature and the labyrinthian model in his work, The House of Fame, which contains a blending of medieval literary, intellectual, metaphysical, visual, and popular labyrinth traditions.28 Similarly, Virgil’s Aeneid, Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and Dante’s Divine Comedy all entail a labyrinthian experience by hero, narrator, and reader.29 The flight of Daedalus can also be considered analogous to the architect’s relationship with the scale model machine. If the scale model machine is overgoverned, it becomes sodden (lifeless) and may fall into the sea. Conversely, there is the real possibility of being burned by the chaos created through an ungoverned technology. By following a moderate mediating course Daedalus, the architect, reached his goal. In the fifth chapter, this work discusses the particular scale model machines of the Spanish architect Antonio Gaudi, the Russian constructivists Vladimir Tatlin and El Lissitsky, the American architect Louis Kahn and, finally, the Polish/ American architect Daniel Libeskind (particularly as described during his tenure first at Cranbrook and then at his own private school in Milan). These and additional contemporary scale models are discussed as a means of describing the current condition of the architect. The modern condition often makes us wonder whether we can control our scale model machines through past reference standard definitions of the ideal. Many architects today actually question the necessity of maintaining controlling reference standards. I suggest that this situation produces a loss of control over the message of the architectural model machine. To summarize, it has become necessary to develop several specific terms, particularly after the third chapter, in order to more fully describe different categories of architectural models. xxvii

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxviii

Introduction

For example, architectural models will be referred to as either ‘small-scale model machines’ or ‘full-scale model machines.’ A small-scale model machine is a design or presentation model of the type that one would typically expect to find used in an architectural office or school. In other cases I will use the term ‘full-scale model machine’ to refer to a completed building of the type that influences other designs and reflects the current habits of humankind. The term ‘architectural scale model’ will be occasionally used to apply to both conditions. In another example, the term ‘reference standards,’ a term borrowed from the theory of measuring, will be used to refer to the current commonly accepted human-based standards. These standards are the agreed upon rules or boundaries developed for understanding and defining a cultures’ concept of that which remains invisible. The architectural model is a thinking mechanism used in making the invisible visible.

Notes 1. Machines can be considered one of the objects most closely associated with the fortunes of architecture.a They can be seen as analogous to inspiration, the force which moves the human mind.b Buildings can express pleasure and architecture creates a reality that connects the senses with the physical.c Marco Frascari writes, ‘If we consider architecture to be a machine that is analogous to the human mind, then buildings exemplify and suggest rather than determine or impose.’d Vitruvius viewed machinery as not only devising construction but also connected to the proportions dictated by the shadows of a building. Frascari writes, ‘Buildings are passive machines, where the casting of shadows trace the everyday story of the infinite semiosis of the art of living well as it is expressed in the habits and “topical thinking”.’e By representation, a future building, the scale model operates as a passive signifying machine whose shadows offer a three-fold semiotic combination of indexical, iconic and symbolic signs. The shadows of a model, as of a building, are important in making tangible that which is intangible. If the reader accepts this position, then past models can be seen as memory machines, informing us of the times of our habits.g a. Alexander Tzonis and Diane Lefaivre, The machines in architectural thinking, Diadalos 18, 15 December 1985, p. 16. b. Marco Frascari, Scammozzi’s ‘idea’ of Architecture, Via II, 1990, p. 33. xxviii

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxix

Introduction

c. Ibid., p. 35. d. Ibid., p. 36. e. Ibid., p. 33. f. Ibid., p. 36. g. An interesting example of this is offered by Giulio Camillo, who attempted to build a theater of memory, an edifice-machine in which the entire universe of human thought could be embodied. The reader may also wish to consider the myth of Diboutades. This myth on the origin of painting tells us of a love-blinded Corinthian maiden, who traced the shadow of her departing lover on a wall. The shadow is the iconic presence and is a mechanism for memory. 2. Merleau-Ponty connects concepts of the visible and invisible to the imagination and the senses of the body.a He tells us that the invisible can be imagined, but cannot be seen. He writes, ‘Meaning is invisible, but the invisible is not the contradictory of the visible: the visible itself has an invisible inner framework and in in-visible is the secret counterpart of the visible. . . .’b Merleau-Ponty believed the invisible is not non-existent but that it pre-exists in the visible. He writes, ‘This visible not actually seen is not the Sartrean imaginary: presence to the absent or of the absent. It is a presence of the imminent, the latent, or the hidden. . . .’c a. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Primacy of Perception, translation by James Edie, (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1964), pp. 162–164. b. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, translation by Alphonso Lingis, (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1969), p. 215. c. Ibid., p. 245. 3. John William Miller, The Definition of a Thing, (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1980), p. 38. 4. Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York, NY: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981), pp. 55–59. 5. Miller, op. cit., p. 42 and 50. 6. Stanford Hohauser, Architectural and Interior Models, (New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1970), p. 6. 7. This work discusses the representational qualities of architectural scale models. To avoid confusion it should be noted that there are several general subcategories within this term, which are used to note the location of the model within the design process. Sketch models are typically used early in the development of a design concept and are fluid and changeable in nature. They concentrate on the basics of space-refining elements and usually remain free from the attention to surface detail. Study models contain more details and are more time-consuming to build than xxix

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxx

Introduction

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19.

20. 21. xxx

sketch models. They are easily changeable and are used to study the site, a specific detail or the overall building concept. Finally, presentation models are highly detailed, difficult to change and very expensive to build. In this study these subcategories will generally be described as scale models. Scales’s other definitions can offer interesting and unusual insight into a deeper meaning of scale. The word scale derives from the Latin scalae, which means ladder, and currently scale can mean to climb. A scale can be mechanism that provides an understandable balance between a known and an unknown. When a fisherman scales a fish he or she, through the act of peeling away, reveals something which was previously unseen underneath. A standard of reference or reference standard is a term borrowed from the field of measuring and simply means to direct to the established fixed rules. In measuring, an unknown is measured by comparing it with a known thing that has been previously developed. Such reference standards are calibrated from time to time by comparing them with a higher-level, generally agreed upon, reference standard. John L. Casti, Mathematical Model, Alternate Realities of Nature and Man, (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), p. 1. Dieterich J. Schuring, Scale Modeling in Engineering, (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, 1977), pp. 6–7. Ibid., p. 5. Ibid., p. 6. Ibid., p. 7. Ibid., p. 7. Angeles, op. cit., p. 276. Schuring, op. cit., p. 8. For examples, the reader can look at the work of Libeskind as published in End Space, (London, UK: The Architectural Association, 1980). John William Miller, The definition of a Thing. (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1980), pp. 43 and 50. Miller believes that the words ‘thing’ and ‘think’ maintain a close etymological relationship. Miller explains that the etymology of ‘thing’ leads to the French causer, the German kosen, and the Italian causa which mean ‘cause.’a Here thinking is the cause that produces the effect, result of consquence.b a. Ibid., p. 159. Miller writes, ‘Professor H.A. Wolfson told me that in certain semitic languages the same word means think, know, desire, speak, depending on the context.’ b. Ibid., p. 159. See Richard Kearney, The Wake of the Imagination, (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), Introduction. Merleau-Ponty makes reference to the concept of the chiasm in this book, The Visible and the Invisible. He uses the analogy of

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxxi

Introduction

the crossing of the optic nerve on the ventral surface of the brain, known as the optic chiasm, in order to explain his concept. He believes the chiasm is a crossing over of fields which allows for ‘pivots’ and hinges; describing a paradigmatic manner in which fields interrelate. He writes, ‘. . . like the chiasm of the eyes, this one is also what makes us belong to the same world – a world which is not projective, but forms its unity across incompossibilities such as that of my world and the world of the other . . .’.a a. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible translation by Alphonso Lingis, (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968), pp. 215, 268. The current use of terms such as trancontextural or intertextural refer to the recent wide variety of works which define their positions through a cross-referencing of different fields. Such works define in a way more similar to how one uses an encyclopedia as opposed to a dictionary. David Summer writes in The Judgement of Sense: Simply to define a term is to imply that it has a fixed meaning, whereas it is more accurate to say that terms cover a wide range of effective meanings that only becomes fully evident in the context in which they are used. The many examples of terms are thus also meant partly to give a sense of their transformation by adaptation. Insistence on the functional dimension of terms cannot be reduced to the significance of situations in which they are used. If terms were never, strictly speaking, used in the same way twice, it is still centrally important that the same terms were used. The continuity of terms itself is deeply conservative, which is to say that something like the agreement of the meaning of terms that makes communication possible is, in its historical dimension, a conservative principle essential to the fabric of a tradition. At the same time it is a conservative principle taking part in a process of continual transformation.b b. David Summer, The Judgement of Sense, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 13. 22. H.G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, second revised edition, (New York, NY: Crossroad Publication, 1989), p. 103. 23. Myths are stories or beliefs that attempt to explain a basic truth. This work refers to certain myths as yet another means of adding definition to our use of the architectural scale model. Hans Blumenberg writes in his Work on Myth, that myths can provide us with an important point of departure because they come down to us through a natural selection process of telling, xxxi

ALBE-INTRO.qxd 22/7/04 10:07 PM Page xxxii

Introduction

creating a ‘Darwinism of words.’a He undertakes to show that scientific rationality and an ongoing ‘work’ on our inherited myths are not only not incompatible but are both indispensable aspects of the comprehensive effort that makes human existence possible.b Blumenberg corrects the ethnocentric implications of the ‘from mythos to logos’ schema. He notes that there is probably no point of demarcation at which rationality takes over (or should take over) completely from more ‘childish,’ prerational modes of thought involving, for example, fantasy. Literary treatment of myth cannot be segregated as a ‘merely aesthetic’ matter with no bearing on the practical business of life. Finally, he points out that myth does not ‘precede’ (and is not rendered obsolete by) rationality.c a. Hans Blumbenberg, Work on Myth, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985), pp. vii–xxxvii. b. Ibid., p. viii. c. Ibid., pp. xii–xiii. 24. Vitruvius, Architecture in Ten Books, translated by Frank Granger, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), BI. C. 1, pp. 7–25. 25. Penelope Reed Doob, The Idea of the Labyrinth, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. 101–144. 26. Ibid., p. 5. 27. Ibid., p. 123. 28. Ibid., p. 309. 29. Ibid., p. 307.

xxxii

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:45 PM Page 1

C H A P T E R

1

Define/Divine/Design

1.1 Prometheus brings fire from the heavens

This chapter proposes that traditionally architectural scale models were not only used for designing buildings but also served, with varying influence, as a means of defining a culture’s universe. This chapter is not a history; rather it is a chronological series of theoretical descriptions concerning different aspects of the scale model. For example, it is generally accepted that ancient Egyptian culture believed that scale models could be used to magically control nature. Classical Greek models

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:45 PM Page 2

Architectural Model as Machine

1.2 Undergraduate student model

1.3 Undergraduate student model

1.4 Undergraduate student model

2

can be seen as greatly influenced by traditions, with seemingly forgotten origins, creating a progression of simulacra which continues today. The Roman architect Vitruvius connected the concept of scale models with machinery. The section on the Middle Ages introduces the concept of the architect as a mechanic whose scale models maintained the church’s already well-defined universe. The writings of the Renaissance architect Alberti describe the renewed influence of scale models in defining overall concepts of society. Finally, the Temple of Jerusalem is employed to demonstrate the traditional usage of scale models as divining mechanisms for defining the divine through design. This represents what occurred when an anger’s templum in the sky became a built temple. The templum served the anger as a template, a pattern or guide, for the future temple. In this way a model is a template (Figures 1.2–1.4). Of the multiple definitions associated with the word ‘model’, the French word maquette is probably closest to the concept of what this study refers to as the architectural model. Literally, a maquette is a demonstration designed to gauge the general appearance or composition of the thing planned. The key to the significance of a maquette is the concept of demonstration. The word ‘demonstrate’ comes from the Latin monstrum, and means to divine, portend or warn. A demonstration offers a foreshadowing of coming events and allows a certain prophetic indication of meaning through marvel, prodigy, and wonder. The idea of demonstration is closely related to that of the divine. The primary meaning of the word ‘divine’ is directly related to the concept of God or perfection.1 However, while this definition has had an important effect upon the concept of the model, it is divine’s secondary definition that is identified most directly with the idea of the maquette. To divine can also mean to foretell through inspiration, intuition or reflection on the shape of future events. For example, many believe that a divining rod has a magical quality which can foretell the future location of a well. Others may simply credit the individual using the divining rod with the power of observing and interpreting the signs of where water might be located. In a similar way the maquette allows the architect to predict the future by interpreting signs and omens. The maquette can warn the architect of future problems and can allow marvel, wonder, astonishment, and surprise into the design process. A completed building also can serve as a kind of maquette. In this situation the building itself can be seen as demonstrating

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:45 PM Page 3

Define/Divine/Design

transcendent concepts rather than simply defining another future building. Here the architectural model becomes more closely involved with the primary meaning of ‘divine.’ This work posits that traditionally architectural scale models have been employed as thinking mechanisms, used not only for designing future buildings, but also as templates for understanding and testing concepts of invisible things in general. In other words, scale models have been conduits used to define what was considered the absolute truth or, typically, the work of the divine. It is then possible to conclude that various early monuments, tombs, and temples all operated as forms of architectural scale models during their times. Therefore, what remains of these past implementations of architectural design helps define humanity’s search to understand the perceived chaos of nature (Figure 1.5).

Historical overview It is difficult to pinpoint when the first architectural scale model was used, though it probably coincided with the inception

1.5 Image of a hunter-gatherer structure

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:45 PM Page 4

Architectural Model as Machine

of art and architecture. Architectural historians generally accept that the first architecture was developed as a means of controlling nature, for example by providing shelter from the elements and protection from wild animals. However, this is not the only reason the first architecture was developed. E.H. Gombrich writes, ‘Among these primitives, there is no difference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. These huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature.’2 Gombrich also writes, ‘If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculpture, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art.’3 It is well documented that from primitive times humankind has created visual images.4 The creation of these visual images stems from the need of primitive people to protect themselves against the forces of nature that they did not understand, to represent the sources of their food supply, and to honor and preserve the spirits of ancestors. They were templates of their understanding of life. Architecture seems directly connected with measuring what many consider God’s work: the material world and its phenomena, or what we call nature. W.R. Lethaby writes in Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, ‘Architecture, then, interpenetrates building, not for satisfaction of the simple needs of the body, but the complex ones of the intellect.’5 This situation occurs because, as Lethaby continues, ‘all architecture, temple, tomb or palace was sacred in the early days and is, thus, inextricably bound up with a people’s thoughts about God and the universe.’6 The universe may appear on the surface to be in a state of flux. Aristotle writes in Mechanical Problems, ‘For in many cases nature produces effects against our advantage; for nature always acts consistently and simply, but our advantage changes in many ways. When, then, we have to produce an effect contrary to nature, we are at a loss, because of the difficulty, and require skill. Therefore, we call that part of skill which assists such difficulties, a device.’7 Within this seeming contradiction, can art and architecture operate as scale model devices, developed for creating an understandable measure of the work of the divine, nature? To assist in answering this larger question it is possible to turn to Lethaby, who writes, ‘If we trace the artistic forms of things made by man, to their origin, 4

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:45 PM Page 5

Define/Divine/Design

we find a direct imitation of nature.’8 Thus, architecture can also be seen as a reflection of humankind’s changing attempts to understand and imitate nature through buildings. These buildings serve as thinking mechanisms for developing understandable measurements of nature. When Spiro Kostof writes of the beginnings of architecture, he is describing modes of designing understandable measurements of nature in terms of boundary and monument. Boundary and monument both imply a determined marking of nature. Humans impose through them their own order on nature, and in doing so introduce that tug of balance between the way things are and the way we want them to be. Now the first human generations lacked such confidence in their own standing within nature.9 A monument is reminiscent of the boundaries marked out by past architects (Figure 1.6).10 Thus, it is possible to consider monuments as reminders or memories of past forms of scale architectural models. Early monuments, tombs and temples could all be seen as operating as various forms of scale architectural models. These buildings were created as means of defining the boundless, operating as reminders of humanity’s search for order in the seeming perplexity of nature. Then, scale models can also be considered to serve as thinking mechanisms used in an attempt to recreate and explain the concepts of absolute perfection or the ideals of the time.

1.6 Urn in the shape of a hut

Ancient Egypt Egyptian civilization is one of the world’s oldest, lasting nearly 3000 years (Figure 1.7). E.H. Gombrich writes on the importance of this period, ‘the Greek masters went to school with the Egyptians, and we are all pupils of the Greeks.’11 The ancient Egyptians present a well documented and historically logical beginning point for this study of the architectural scale model. It is generally accepted that the ancient Egyptians were happy, optimistic people who enjoyed their present life enough to want an afterlife modeled after it. This optimism was reflected in their art and architecture. However, they did have one important worry: they feared the spirits of deceased relatives, on whom they blamed all their troubles.12 It is little wonder that 5

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:45 PM Page 6

Architectural Model as Machine

1.7

Pyramids of Giza

the Egyptians developed a preoccupation with the afterlife. For them death seems to have resembled life. Their greatest efforts were directed towards preparing their tombs with all the equipment and provisions necessary to keep them at least as happy in death as they were in this life. It is not surprising that the Egyptian concepts of house and tomb are represented by very similar hieroglyphs. The house is the template of the tomb and the tomb is the template of the house. Typical of such a tomb is the pyramid, the generally acknowledged prototype of which is contained in the tomb complex of the third dynasty pharaoh Zoser at Saggara. This pyramid was based on two earlier full-scale models. The first 6

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 7

Define/Divine/Design

was in the form of a mastabe, which was an earlier Egyptian flat-topped tomb with sloped sides. The second scale model is the ziggurat, a symbolic mountain. The designer of this pyramid, who served as an example for future architects, was Zoser’s high priest, Imhoptep, the first recorded architect. In many ways, Imhoptep set the standards for all Egyptian architects. In a culture such as Egypt’s, the chief architect was at the peak of the governing hierarchy. Imhoptep was revered for his great wisdom as a scribe, astronomer, magician, and healer.13 Interestingly, it was as a healer, not as an architect, that he was later deified. Architecture was simply one of the many fields of learning he commanded.14 Imhoptep’s broad background is not far removed from the education recommended centuries later by the Roman architect Vitruvius.15 One of the more interesting features associated with Egyptian tombs and pyramids was that many had hundreds of small, brilliantly painted, wooden scale models located in almost every chamber. These small-scale models were more than simply replicas, for they took on an added dimension of spiritual belief. The needs of the deceased would be magically supplied eternally through small-scale model butcher’s shops, bakeries, granaries, carpenter’s workshops, and model boats.16 Egyptian small-scale models were built so that the deceased would enjoy a continuous supply of food and the company and support of family and servants. They ensured that the deceased would maintain his or her proper status in the next world, exempt from the duties of manual labor. These small-scale models, animated by magic, assured that the deceased and his or her household would have an endless supply of necessities.17 In addition to small-scale models, actual food and drink were placed in tombs, but it is interesting to presume that their efficiency was no greater than that of their modeled counterparts (Figures 1.8–1.12).18 Egyptian small-scale models were believed by their creators to take on magical qualities that could control nature. These models reflected an Egyptian society preoccupied with the afterlife and, in this way, they seem to have reflected the Egyptian belief system, just as the use of today’s scale architectural models reflect the modern condition.19 Scale models were probably seen by the Egyptians as a means of controlling and marking out a definition of nature as seen through Egyptian eyes. These small-scale models can be seen as magical

1.8 Egyptian funerary model: Cattle stable

1.9 Egyptian Bakery

funerary

model:

1.10 Egyptian funerary Granary shop

model:

7

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 8

Architectural Model as Machine

because they represented an attempt to control the seeming perplexity of nature through techniques beyond those explainable by Egyptian natural laws or phenomena.

Classical Greece

1.11 Egyptian funerary Butcher shop

model:

1.12 Egyptian Garden

model:

funerary

When we speak of ancient classical Greece, we are generally referring to the Golden Age of Athens, which set the standards for our western thinking more than any other civic environment in history, with the possible exception of Jerusalem. Historians typically refer to ancient Athens as the first democracy and as a city devoted to human excellence in mind and body, to philosophy, and to the arts and sciences. In western thought this period has come to represent a summit in the history of civilization. It is clear that Greek architecture was an important standard for many later buildings. The Greek aim was to develop eternally valid standards of form and proportion. It is probably that they wished to erect buildings on a human scale, yet ones designed to define their concept of invisible things.20 This then was considered by later architects to be a classically ideal architecture that has almost continuously set architectural standards for the past 2500 years. Architecturally, the Greeks derived their buildings from other Mediterranean civilizations. For example, the plan of the temple came from Asia Minor or Mycenae, and the columnar form of the Greek temple was taken from Egyptian architecture. Certainly Egyptian architecture would have presented the best example for the evolution of Greek architecture, since both depend on accurately cut megalithic masonry (Figure 1.13).21 Greek architecture, after 600 BC, was built mainly of stone, but the building techniques primarily referred to elements of earlier wooden construction. Is it possible that the Greeks’ deep respect for past traditions, whose origins may have been forgotten, caused this transformation, rather than an ignorance of the material differences between wood and stone? Certainly similar transformations still occur when current architects forget the past influences on a scale model’s original meanings. George Hershey, in The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture, wonders: Why, at great expense, do we have stone carvers make replicas of beads, reels, eggs, darts, claws, and a type of prickly plant, the acanthus, that grows only in certain

8

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 9

Define/Divine/Design

1.13 Exterior of the Propylaea and the Parthenon

parts of the Peloponese? Why wrap a courthouse in what an ancient Greek would interpret as the garlands or streamers used to decorate sacrificial oxen? Why call a gable by the name of a bone and leather drum, tympanum, that was used in Bacchic rituals? . . . As Pugin, the great anti-classicist asked, ‘Do we worship the blood of bulls and goats?’.22 Although classical Greek architecture is now greatly respected, the social position of ancient Greek architects did not reflect this current exalted status. Architects during this period were not considered to be members of the highest class and, certainly, were not in the same class as the philosophers. J. Bundgaard advances the theory that Greek architects did 9

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 10

Architectural Model as Machine

not, strictly speaking, design buildings. This may be why, unlike in the Egyptian period, not a single architectural drawing exists from this period. According to Bundgaard both the form and construction of a Greek temple were traditionally defined sufficiently for the architect to settle issues on the site.23 It appears that many important design decisions made were not made by Greek architects. Although these architects did not blindly follow either the Egyptians or their own predecessors, they made only slight modifications to these earlier designs through the use of architectural scale models. J.J. Coulton writes in Ancient Greek Architects at Work, The general form of a Greek temple was firmly established by convention and, therefore, needed no plan, while the ways in which one temple differed from others of the same period and area were subtle curvatures, slight variations in column size and spacing, small additional moldings in new places, and so on, and the effect of these could not easily be demonstrated or appreciated at a small scale, particularly when the necessary drawing equipment was far from perfect. Scale drawings and scale models would, therefore, not be helpful. Indeed Greek architects normally used different proportions in buildings of different sizes and might well have found scale models positively misleading.24

1.14 Greek paradeigma

Because the basic form of a Greek temple had been previously defined, architectural design small-scale models were of little importance. There was, however, a type of architectural scale model more important to Greek architecture: the paradeigma. A paradeigma is a specimen or an example used to study specific architectural elements, such as triglyphs or capitals which required a three-dimensional design, and in cases where carved or painted decorations had to be shown (Figure 1.14). J.J. Coulton writes about the paradeigma, The use of full-size specimens in this way raises a question of the architect’s responsibility for the design. There is evidence of specimens not made by the architect, but none of specimens made by him (as one might expect if he was by training a craftsman); since questions of detail are so important to Greek architecture, does this not mean that the craftsmen who made the specimens were the real designers? . . . The responsibility for supplying

10

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 11

Define/Divine/Design

specimens was the architect’s, however, and as the man in charge of construction he would naturally approve, or even initiate, innovations, although he might not impose his own local style on another area. At the least, the architect must have determined the dimensions, probably also the proportions, of the part in question, so that it would fit its place in the whole building. With one exception references to a paradeigma before the Hellenistic period involve only a single element or detail . . . for the word ‘paradeigman’ does not carry the implications of small scale that model often carries in English, and there is no clear evidence that the concept of working to scale was current in Greece before the Hellenistic period.25 There was not much praise for architects in ancient Greece; even though they rose above the level of common craftsmen, none ever attained the high position of, for example, the Egyptian priest /architect Imhoptep. The mysterious and divine roles maintained by Egyptian architects bonded the Egyptian state architects to a ruling class; this relationship was an element missing from the straightforward world of Greece. There those who practiced architecture were not especially prone to be lionized by the public, perhaps because their buildings had mixed and confused authorship. Sculptors and painters, whose skills have a more direct relationship with their product, found greater admiration.26 The Greek artists were able to interpret, change and define through their scale models. Greek architects generally used already well-defined concepts of explaining invisible things and mainly dealt with the refinement of details. Greek architects were not prone to challenge the general concepts that regulated the designs of their buildings, rather they generally imitated past designs. For this reason these architects were not in a position to question what their buildings represented. It may be useful to examine a more recent architectural example in order to reflect upon the ramifications of this situation. A current example of the utilization of the traditional Greek model can be seen today in Nashville, Tennessee. The city was, at one time, known as the ‘Athens of the South’ because of its many schools and colleges and its accompanying culture. In 1897, a full-scale plaster model of the Parthenon was constructed to last but one year in the city to commemorate the Tennessee Centennial Exposition. However, the plaster Parthenon quickly became representative 11

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 12

Architectural Model as Machine

1.15 The Nashville Parthenon

of the city and its culture, and consequently it was not removed (Figure 1.15). Benjamin Franklin Wilson III, in The Parthenon of Pericles and its Reproduction in America, writes, ‘In this age of eager restlessness, constant experiment and changing fashions, it is essential that we should have some standards of the beautiful preserved to us that are beyond question or criticism. Such a standard existed in the Parthenon at Athens, and the people of America and of the world are indeed fortunate in its reproduction at Nashville, where it stands as a beacon light to man and woman of every land who are interested in the culture of the past, the present, or the future.’27 To the citizens of Nashville, the Parthenon represented a standard of perceived excellence. The standard represented by the Nashville plaster 12

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 13

Define/Divine/Design

Parthenon was considered as one of general stability and moderation. Wilson writes, ‘The Greeks in Pericles’ day did not allow the imagination to run away with them. Every detail of the Parthenon, every line, bears silent witness to their moderation. They abhorred eccentricity. One of their proverbs, ‘no excess’, is exemplified by the perfect harmony of the proportion of the Parthenon.’28 The building of the Nashville plaster Parthenon does not, on the surface, appear very unusual. More permanent copies of Greek temples serve as banks, courthouses and academic buildings. The intention of the creators of the plaster Parthenon was to demonstrate that the future of Nashville was one based on moderation, idealism and stability. However, when this situation is viewed more closely certain contradictions begin to appear. Certainly the residents of late-nineteenth century Nashville did not believe mere plaster would provide the city with a bright future. It was the form of the Parthenon that represented the builder’s intentions. However, as Hershey has earlier noted, the Greek temples’ form derived from somewhat wild and pagan roots, which would most likely have scandalized the population of Nashville. This is probably, in part, why the garish colorful decorations were not reproduced in Nashville: the bright colors would have been considered excessive. The reader should note then that the meaning of the Parthenon changed depending upon its context and that its original meanings may have actually been forgotten. Its meaning is subject to shifts and can hardly be considered stable. This point can also be made about the shifting meaning of scale models in general. The plaster Parthenon became representative of the city and its future. However, soon after it was built, the Nashville Parthenon began to deteriorate, for plaster is not a very stable material. By 1931, the crumbling plaster Parthenon began to represent an embarrassment for Nashville and was finally replaced by a more permanent concrete replica. This copy of the copy replaced the unstable, shifting representation of stability, moderation, and idealism. This is an example of a simulacrum. When the original reasons behind a defining concept, such as those setting the form of a Greek temple, become unclear or forgotten, a simulacrum may occur. The word simulacrum comes from the Latin word simulare which means to make like or to similate. A simulacrum is a representation, image or effigy having merely the form or appearance of a certain thing without 13

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 14

Architectural Model as Machine

possessing its substance or proper qualities. It can be an imitation or sham which can create a superficial likeness, appearance or semblance.29

Imperial Rome

1.16 Interior of Pantheon

The standards for much of Roman architecture came from classical Greece, and many architects of Imperial Rome were themselves Greek. Though the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders were borrowed from the Greek scale model, they were adapted, embellished, and reinterpreted in ways that fit the emerging Roman concept of invisible things. For example, in Greek architecture the column was the most important member; in Rome the column was frequently downgraded to merely decorative uses, while the wall became the essential element. Roman architects also employed many rounded or plastic forms within their buildings. The development of concrete and new uses of brick made possible the construction of great Roman arches, vaults, and domes. An important example of this architecture was the Pantheon located in Rome, with a dome 141 feet in diameter. This dome was a great feat of engineering and a masterpiece of simple proportions, based on a sphere. The Pantheon and the Colosseum incorporate sophisticated solutions to extremely complex structural problems. It is this great engineering skill, combined with the powerful use of space, mass and volume, that is the greatest achievement of Roman architects. For centuries after its completion, the dome of the Pantheon was the largest in the world, and was believed to be a scale model of the heavens (Figure 1.16).30 The following insightful story concerning the use of architectural models occurs in the tenth book written by Vitruvius. He writes, For Diognetus was a Rhodian architect, to whom, as an honor, was granted out of the public treasury a fixed annual payment commensurate with the dignity of his art. At this time an architect from Aradus, Callias by name, coming to Rhodes, gave a public lecture, and showed a model of a wall, over which he set a machine on a revolving crane with which he seized an helepolis as it approached the fortifications, and brought it inside the wall. The Rhodians, when they had seen this model, filled with admiration, took from Diognetus the yearly grant and transferred this honor to Callias.31

14

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 15

Define/Divine/Design

This passage suggests several important issues. First, the Romans seemed to be well aware of the persuasive application of the small-scale model. Second, the small-scale model built by Callius permitted a population untrained in architecture to easily view the possibilities of a full-scale mechanism. Third, the Roman small-scale model presented a mechanism granting the architect and the population an opportunity to perceive a possible future. Vitruvius continues: Meanwhile, King Demetrius, who because of his stubborn courage was called Poliorcetes, making war on Rhodes, brought with him a famous Athenian architect named Epimachus. He constructed at enormous expense, with the utmost care and exertion, an helepolis one hundred and thirty-five feet high and sixty feet broad. He strengthened it with hair and rawhide so that it could withstand the blow of a stone weighing three hundred and sixty pounds shot from a ballista; the machine itself weighed three hundred and sixty thousand pounds. When Callias was asked by the Rhodians to construct a machine to resist this helepolis, and bring it within the wall as he had promised, he said it was impossible. For not all things are practicable on identical principles, but there are some things which, when enlarged in imitation of small models, are effective, others cannot have models, but are constructed independently of them, while there are some which appear feasible in models, but when they have begun to increase in size are impracticable, as we can observe in the following instance. A half inch, inch, or inch and a half hole is bored with an auger, but if we should wish, in the same manner, to bore a hole a quarter of a foot in breadth, it is impracticable, while one of half a foot or more seems not even conceivable.32 Roman architects appeared to understand the direct proportional strength of material limitations of the small-scale model. This understanding reveals that Roman architects had a sophisticated education in engineering principles. Vitruvius believed that the training of the ideal architect depended upon many disciplines and arts. Like the Greeks of the Golden Age, he recommended a balanced middle course for the architect, with some exceptions. Vitruvius believed that an architect should be a man of letters, a skillful draftsman, a mathematician, familiar 15

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 16

Architectural Model as Machine

with historical studies, a diligent student of philosophy, acquainted with music; not ignorant of medicine, learned in the responses of jurisconsult, familiar with astronomy and astronomical calculations.33 This increased knowledge was necessary for Roman architects because they had expanded areas of responsibility. A Roman architect could find himself involved with a number of specialties, such as designing dams, ports, military camps, machinery, and many additional engineering matters beyond simply designing buildings (Figures 1.17 and 1.18). Vitruvius points out, So, too, in some models it is seen how they appear practicable on the smallest scale and likewise on a larger. And so the Rhodians, in the same manner, deceived by the same reasoning, inflicted injury and insult on Diogetus. Therefore, when they saw the enemy as stubbornly hostile, slavery threatening them because of the machine

1.17 Vitruvian siege machine/De architectura libri deci

16

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 17

Define/Divine/Design

1.18 Vitruvian machine/De architectura libri deci

which had been built to take the city, and that they must look forward to the destruction of their state, they fell at the feet of Diognetus begging him to come to the aid of the fatherland . . .34 Vitruvius points to a different relationship between Roman architects and their models, than that held by the Greeks. Though still influenced by tradition, Roman architects were allowed a greater freedom in developing their designs. This new freedom required an expanded liberal education for architects, who needed to more fully understand the difficulties involved with interpreting designs through models. The increased ability to interpret also allowed Roman architects, through their buildings, a greater influence on setting the broader definitions of the Roman cosmos. This may be the reason Roman architects were seen as maintaining a higher social standing than the Greek architects.35 17

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 18

Architectural Model as Machine

The Middle Ages The Roman Empire eventually became paralyzed by the unmanageability of its immense, far-flung imperial territory. The empire was increasingly troubled by barbarian invasions, and in 410 AD Rome itself was invaded and sacked. There is limited direct reference to the use of the architectural smallscale model during the period beginning with the fall of the Roman Empire (approximately 477 AD) and ending with the Renaissance (1419). There are examples of knights returning from the crusades with small-scale models of holy structures. These small-scale models were religiously copied as full-scale buildings without consideration of such factors as local building techniques, materials, and environments. There are also examples of statues of church officials and patrons holding small-scale models of completed churches.36 These should not be seen as examples of personal creative endeavors; rather, they served more as religious icons. With Rome in decline, Christianity became the official religion of the empire, with the church becoming the most powerful force in Europe. This new religion had a major impact on the social and cultural world of European philosophy, science, literature, art, and architecture. Byzantine architecture developed after 330 AD when Constantine established the imperial capital at Byzantium, culminating Early Christian architecture. Although the architects of the Early Byzantine Empire were influenced by the same forces that shaped the writings of Vitruvius, changes were occurring during this period. Spiro Kostof writes, ‘According to the treatise of the geometer Pappus of Alexandria, written probably about AD 320, the ideal education comprised a theoretical part made up of geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and physics, and a manual part that involved work in metals, construction, carpentering, and the art of painting, and the practical execution of these matters.’37 This is a substantially more restricted view concerning the education of the architect than that advanced by Vitruvius. For example, the study of philosophy is not mentioned; this interesting omission may have occurred because of the altered position of the architect in society. Kostof comments on this period, The remarkable thing about this definition of architectural studies is that it appears in a book on geometry and that the outlined curriculum – which is said to be based on the 18

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 19

Define/Divine/Design

doctrine of Heron of Alexandria, an expert on stereometry and the author of a book on vaulting – is referred to as ‘the science of mechanics’. The person who mastered the curriculum became a ‘mechanic’ (or mechanikos), a term applied to a number of later Roman and Byzantine architects, among them Anthemius’ colleague of Isidorius of Miletus. It is clear that this term had, by now, superseded the classical denomination of the architect, i.e. ‘architekton’ or ‘architectus’, which in turn began to be applied to those practicing architects who lacked the theoretical schooling outlined by Pappus.38 The concept of architect as mechanic illuminates the relationship of the architects to their scale models. There are two types of mechanics: those skilled in the creation of machines, and those skilled in maintaining machines. Because machines are so common today, they can be taken for granted. For most, a machine is defined as something with a practical purpose that replaces or increases mankind’s own forces. However, in this study the reader should reflect upon an earlier concept of the machine. In some Greek tragedies, the plot was resolved by the appearance on stage of a representation of a God, who was lowered, as if from the sky by a machine. The deus ex machina, which means ‘God from the machine,’ came to metaphorically represent divine help from some unseen or unexpected source. The deus ex machina plays a dual role in a Greek tragedy. First, the machine is employed to solve a specific moment of confusion, directing the development of the unfolding narrative in a new unforseen direction. Second, the deus ex machina serves as a conduit to the Greek Gods. In this way, the machine can be viewed as similar to the maquette, for the deus ex machina divines through the divine the future of the plot, causing both roles to become interconnected. Through the connection between this concept of the machine and that of the maquette, one can begin to see the connection between the idea of the machine and the developing church. The church operated as a mechanism by which to demonstrate the word of God. During the Byzantine period the position of the church was being developed, and architects would have been influential in the development of this emerging organizational mechanism. However, the architect’s relationship with machine-like scale models was being modified to 19

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 20

Architectural Model as Machine

resemble that of a mechanic who maintains a machine. These changes became more apparent during the Gothic period. The Gothic cathedral is similar to a full-scale model and provides an example of a thinking mechanism used for demonstrating the Christian religion. The building is designed to enhance an awareness of the presence of God and to carefully control the relationship of the parishioners to the church hierarchy. The cathedral, though operating as a scale model, maintains great control over its users, demonstrated by the fact that the Christian religion itself is well documented throughout the building. During the Middle Ages the building displayed, through its sculpture and stained glass windows, the story of medieval Christianity to an illiterate population. Over the centuries the Christian religion developed a relatively controlled and well-defined explanation of the composition of the unknown in order to avoid incompatible conclusions. It is understandable why competing methods of defining the world such as myths, legends, witchcraft, and modern science, were discouraged in such an environment. The church did not wish to offer the reader much opportunity for misinterpretation, and thus the building became a thinking mechanism for explaining the teachings of the church (Figures 1.19 and 1.20). Abbot Suger (1081–1151) presents an important example of an architect mechanic who created machine-like scale models. He also provides an example of the church’s control over the interpretation of the scale model during the Middle Ages. It is known that Suger was born of peasant parents. As a child he showed a high level of intelligence and was brought to the nearby abbey of Saint-Denis to receive an education from the monks. Suger chose to remain at the abbey, eventually becoming abbot of St Denis and right-hand man of both Louis VI and Louis VII.39 Anne Rockwell points to Suger as the key figure responsible for the beginning of the Gothic period. She believes that his responsibility for rebuilding the choir of St Denis (1135–1144) brought together in a single moment the elements which designate Gothic architecture. Rockwell writes, ‘It is believed that he was the inspiration behind many of the architectural innovations employed in the project, which includes an original use of the pointed (rather than round) arch and the ribbed vault and extensive use of stained glass, including a rose window in the facade.’40 It is important to remember that Suger was an architectural client and not an architect, nor did he have any responsibility, even as an amateur, for any 20

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 21

Define/Divine/Design

1.19 Façade of the cathedral of Notre Dame

architectural work. It is also important to note that the names of the architects of the church were never mentioned in Suger’s writings. Could it be that this condition existed because the architects of the cathedral were considered merely the mechanics who maintained the machinery of the church, while it was Suger who maintained the skills necessary for creating the mechanism of the scale model cathedral? 21

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 22

Architectural Model as Machine

1.20 Royal Abbey at St Denis

On the other hand, Villard de Honnecourt offers an example of the Gothic architect mechanic who maintains the machine. Villard was a French architect known primarily for his ‘model book’ made up of sketches and writings concerning architectural practices during the thirteenth century. Model books, also known as sketch on pattern books, contained explanations of the closely guarded formulas and trade secrets of an architect’s medieval lodge. These books were not for public consumption rather they laid down established traditions for the initiated architect to copy. In his model book, Villard combined principles of ancient geometry with medieval studio techniques and practices.41 He included information on technical procedures, mechanical devices, suggestions for making human and animal figures and notes on the buildings and monuments he had seen. Villard notes in the legends next to 22

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 23

Define/Divine/Design

1.21 Villard de Honnecourt

his figures, that the sketches in his ‘model book’ were meant to be patterns of imitation. In the typical Gothic workshop, the imitation of well-defined models fitted in a well-defined artistic tradition, so Villard’s position was not unique. Did Gothic architects, such as Villard, question the concepts behind their models? Moshe Barasch writes in Theories of Art, Nowhere does Villard suggest that the artist look at the human head or figure, or at the beast he is about to represent; never does he ask that the artist measure the figure or that he rely on one of the traditional systems of composition (such as accepted in Byzantine art) that ultimately go back to actual measurements of nature, even if the artist employing the system was hardly aware of its empirical origins. Even where Villard says that a figure was represented ‘after nature’ (al vif ), it is quite obvious that it was 23

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 24

Architectural Model as Machine

1.22 Villard de Honnecourt: Lion and porcupine

constructed with a compass (see his famous drawing of a lion) and, in fact, lacks any direct observation of nature.42 In his model book, Villard attempts to fit his observations into already well-established rules. Could the architect’s attitude of accepting such regulation also affect the use of the scale model? The architectural scale model, as a mechanism for implementing design, existed during the period between antiquity and the Renaissance, but the interpretations of the messages of these scale models were stringently controlled. To the medieval mind, there was no doubt who created nature. The chief architect who created nature was considered a Christian God whose work was interpreted and defined by the hierarchy of the church. Suger, as an official of the church, would have been in a more powerful position to initiate definitions through interpretations than the layman Villard. For 24

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 25

Define/Divine/Design

Villard the definition of pattern of nature was tightly regulated by the church. Consequently, the machine was already well designed and he was only allowed to maintain it through his craft. Suger, because of his education in church theory, was allowed a somewhat greater freedom of interpretation and became the mechanic who created the machine-like scale models.

The Renaissance The Renaissance cannot be discussed without major reference to Italian architecture and its architectural small-scale model.43 There were a vast number of small-scale models built during this period (Plates 3–5, Figures 1.23–1.25). These models served the Renaissance builders when it came to the execution of a building. Designs for the decorative details seem often to have been modeled in wax, a practice continued from Roman architects. A beautifully built wooden small-scale model for S. Petronio in Bologna (1514) survives and so does the wooden small-scale model of the Palazzo Strozzi (1485), but these are exceptions. Brunelleschi’s cupola small-scale models were used to solve problems not usually encountered by designers. For example, it seems that Brunelleschi built certain small-scale models specifically in order to explain his vaulting technique.44 Vasari complained that the carelessness of those in charge led to the destruction of the small-scale models made for Sta. Maria del Fiore.45 This type of small-scale model lacked details and only gave a general idea of the appearance and scale of a building. These details, and succeeding decisions, were left to discussions between the designer and those responsible for the execution of the designs. To study three-dimensional effects, Michelangelo made clay small-scale models. He rarely made perspective sketches, because he thought of the observer as in motion and hesitated to visualize buildings from a fixed point. The introduction of modeling into architectural practice demonstrates the identity of sculpture and architecture in Michelangelo’s mind. Michelangelo left a clay, small-scale model of the staircase of the Laurentian Library for the workmen to follow. He also left small-scale models for the workmen to follow at St. Peter’s, many years later.46 Leone Battista Alberti (1404–1472) was an Italian Renaissance architect and a Renaissance man. Jakob C. Burkhardt describes Alberti as the paragon of the

1.23 Giovanni de’ Medici model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore

1.24 Giovanni Antonio Dosio, model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore

25

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 26

Architectural Model as Machine

1.25 Academy of Design, model of façade for S. Maria del Fiore

26

‘Renaissance man’ who was not just versatile, but universal. Alberti lived at the beginning of the Renaissance, and his diverse interests and talents included architecture, painting, music, mathematics, and even athletics. Architecture was a somewhat theoretical pursuit for Alberti. Not faced with the detailed or pragmatic problems of building, he devoted himself to demonstrating principles of proportion and codification for reuse of classical building parts. Alberti’s treatise On the Art of Building in Ten Books, written in Latin, the language of the educated, was addressed to the patron rather than the builder. His treatise offers the patron specific instructions on the use of the small-scale model. These instructions were included in the second book on the Art of Building, which covers materials. Alberti begins his discussion of small-scale models by relating a story from ancient Rome. ‘Suetonius tells us that Julius Caesar completely demolished a house on his estate at Nemi because it did not totally meet with his approval, although he had begun it from the foundation and had it finished at vast expense. In this he deserves censure even from us, descendants, either for his failure to take sufficient prior account of the relevant considerations, or perhaps for his fickleness, which allowed him to dislike an executed building, although it had been correctly constructed.’47 Alberti continues, ‘For this reason, I will always commend the time-honored custom, practiced by the best builders, of preparing not only drawings and sketches but also [small-scale] models of wood or any other materials.’48 Thus, according to Alberti, the small-scale model would have been useful for a patron such as Caesar because it would have permitted him to view the future with more clarity than drawings allowed. This use of the small-scale model was not new, as Alberti states, since the small-scale model was used during the Gothic period. The difference was that architects were again given freedom of interpretation, by the changing philosophical standards of the period. Ideas developed through scale models were not as strictly controlled by the organization of the church or the guilds as they had been during the Gothic period. Alberti’s advice on small-scale models is offered to the patron, not the builder, differing from that of Vitruvius, whose treatise was directed mainly to the architect. Alberti’s treatise was not interested in the rigid control of the building process, unlike the medieval model books.

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 27

Define/Divine/Design

Alberti writes, ‘These [the small-scale models] will enable us to weigh up repeatedly and examine, with the advice of experts, the work as a whole and individual dimensions of all the parts, and, before continuing any farther, to estimate the likely trouble and expense.’49 Architects during this period came mainly from the arts and were well trained in design. Many of these artists were not well versed in the craft of building. Alberti, regardless of his designs for ecclesiastical and secular buildings, never pretended to any expertise in the practical side of architecture. He most probably used the small-scale model as a mechanism to make sure that his expert craftsmen saw the same future building that he did. Alberti continues, ‘Having constructed these models, it will be possible to examine clearly and consider thoroughly the relationship between the site and the surrounding district, the shape of the area and the number and order of the parts of a building, the appearance of the walls, the strength of the covering, and in short the design and construction of all the elements discussed in the previous book.’50 This section reflects Alberti’s interest in concinnitas. Joseph Rykwert defines concinnitas as follows: ‘the three principal components of that whole theory [of beauty] into which we inquire are number [numerus], what we might call outline [ finito], and position [collocatio]. But arising from the composition of these three is a further quality in which beauty shines full face, our term for this is concinnitas. Neither in the whole body nor in its parts does concinnitas flourish as much as it does in nature herself. Everything that nature produces is regulated by the law of concinnitas.51 This interest in concinnitas is a reflection of the general interest in humanism and the study of nature, the work of the divine, during this period. Alberti here seems to be using his small-scale model to test these theories and certainly the belief in these theories, as explanations of the Renaissance universe, were reflected in the mechanism of his small scale model. Again Alberti continues, It [the small scale model] will also allow one to increase or decrease the size of those elements freely, to exchange them, and to make new proposals and alterations until everything fits together well and meets with approval. Furthermore, it will provide a surer indication of likely costs – which is not unimportant – by allowing one to calculate the width and the height of individual elements, 27

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 28

Architectural Model as Machine

their thickness, number, extent, form, appearance, and quality, according to their importance and the workmanship they require. In this way it is possible to form a clearer and more certain idea of the design and quantity of columns, capitals, bases, cornices, pediments, revetment, flooring, statues, and everything else relating to the construction of the building and its ornamentation.52 This places Alberti’s small-scale models in the role of mechanisms used for thinking about his design. Thus, these smallscale models were used not only to present ideas on the future building to others, but also as a means to develop ideas, to test, to experiment as a means of avoiding errors in the future building. Alberti brings up a key point on the use of his small-scale model. He writes, There is a particular relevant consideration that I feel should be mentioned here: the presentation of models that have been colored and lewdly dressed with the allurement of painting is the mark of no architect’s intent on conveying the facts; rather it is that of a conceited one, striving to attract and seduce the eye of the beholder, and to divert his attention from a proper examination of the parts to be considered, towards the admiration of himself. Better than that the models are not accurately finished, refined, and highly decorated, but plain and simple, so that they demonstrate the ingenuity of him who conceived the idea, and not the skill of the one who fabricated the model.53 In this quote, Alberti is describing the difference between illusion and allusion. He is warning against creating illusion in the scale model. If one plays with an illusion, its falsehood may become apparent. Alberti appears to be recommending allusion in the small-scale model. ‘Allusion’ means figurative or symbolic reference, or ‘to allude’ may also mean to play with. This differs from ‘illusion’ which is an erroneous interpretation that can delude or be against play. Alberti is making the case that we should play with our small-scale models, through the projection of our ideas. Alberti’s conceited architect does not feel the need to play with the message offered by the mechanism of the small-scale model. This architect may unknowingly find that he has fabricated a lie or an illusion of 28

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 29

Define/Divine/Design

the truth similar to the one Julius Caesar discovered. For these reasons Alberti informs us, ‘It is advisable then to construct small-scale models of this kind, and to inspect and re-examine them time and time again, both on your own and with others, so thoroughly that there is little or nothing within the work whose identity, nature, likely position and size, and prospective use you do not grasp.’54 Alberti makes another important observation about small-scale models. He writes, When examining the model, these are some of the considerations to be taken into account. First, nothing should be attempted that lies beyond human capacity, nor anything undertaken that might immediately come into conflict with nature. For so great is nature’s strength that, although on occasion some huge obstacle may obstruct her, or some barrier divert her, she will always overcome and destroy any opposition or impediment, and any stubbornness, as it were, displayed against her, will eventually be overthrown and destroyed by her continual and persistent onslaught. We ought to be careful, then, to avoid any undertaking that is not in complete accordance with the laws of nature.55 This observation again points to the Renaissance period’s renewed interest in referring to nature, the work of the divine, as a standard. Of course, the effect of nature on buildings was an important consideration during the Gothic period, but architects influenced by the humanism of the Renaissance placed what was seen as a new emphasis on the study of nature. Alberti believed that through play, scale models were useful in his study of nature. They allowed him to see whether he was fabricating a lie through his designs. He writes, ‘To avoid such pitfalls, therefore, I must urge you again and again, before embarking on the work, to weigh up the whole matter on your own and discuss it with experienced advisors. Using scale models examine every part of your proposal two, three, four, seven, up to ten times, taking breaks in between, until from the very roots to the uppermost tile there is nothing, concealed or open, large or small, for which you have not thought out, resolved, and determined, thoroughly and at length, the most handsome and effective position, order, and number.’56 Alberti’s writings illustrate the significance of playing with scale models in order to avoid illusions. His work also reflects 29

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 30

Architectural Model as Machine

upon the growing importance of models in the Renaissance architectural process. The architects of the Renaissance altered and greatly expanded upon the medieval traditions of the architectural scale model. Alberti in his treatise noted these differences. Now architects were accorded a new freedom in interpreting the divine message of the scale model. These architects became like the mechanics who invent their machines. The thinking mechanisms of Renaissance scale models not only foretold the future of a specific building but also served to demonstrate and define the general concepts of the universe. The architects of the Renaissance were allowed a renewed opportunity to engage the scale model as a form of maquette.

The Temple of Jerusalem

1.26 Temple of Jerusalem/Temple model

30

The Temple of Jerusalem (Figure 1.26) serves to demonstrate humankind’s historic relationship with the thinking mechanism of the scale model used for defining the prevailing concept of the divine. A temple is considered a measured sacred space and is an edifice, perceived as the residing place of or dedicated to the worship of a deity.57 It is the definition of temple as the measured space of a divine ideal that makes it important to the study of the scale model. There are several basic architectural elements that typically define (mark out the measure of ) a temple. These elements include the enclosure, the gate, the altar, the tower, a column standing within the enclosure and, finally, the cella, which is the most sacred space contained within the sanctuary, or temple proper, where the image of the deity (ideal) or his symbol is kept. These are the significant elements which are clearly discussed in accounts of the Temple of Jerusalem.58 The Temple of Jerusalem was the center of ancient Israeli worship and national identity. The first temple was constructed during the reign of King David’s son, Solomon, and was completed in 957 BC as an abode for the ark and as a place of assembly for the people. The building was oblong and consisted of three rooms: the porch, the main room, and the Holy of Holies in which the Ark rested. It contained five altars: one at the entrance of the Holy of Holies, two within the building, one before the porch and a large altar in the courtyard.59 Solomon’s Temple was rebuilt by Zerubbabel and later by Herod. Herod’s temple was situated asymmetrically within a

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 31

Define/Divine/Design

square court which was, in turn, subdivided into four smaller square and unroofed sections. It is written that the area of the whole temple comprised 500 square cubits. The exact location of Herod’s Temple on the mount is unknown, although it is recorded that the temple was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.60 This holy building is derived architecturally from a divine pattern revealing the shape of the tabernacle, and the temple. ‘God’s guidance is implied in David’s rejection (II Samuel 7:5, 13; I, Chronicles 17:12) and the choice of his son Solomon as a builder.’61 God was the original or ideal considered for or deserving of imitation. The First Temple serves as a full-scale model reflecting the supposed order of the ideal. As Rudolf Wittkower writes in Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, ‘This order was believed to have been originally inspired directly by God when he charged Solomon to build the Temple, and architects, therefore, attempted to re-create this perfect archetype from which all other orders were thought to be derived.’62 The Second Temple was generally considered to be based on the first. The Temple of Jerusalem also survives as a representation of the ideal in the Christian mind. For example, Jesus is said to have described the destruction and rebuilding of the temple in reference to his death and resurrection. Medieval Christians described the temple as setting the ideal standard for their soaring sanctuaries.63 Justinian is said to have cried on entering the restored Santa Sophia, ‘Solomon, I have outdone you.’64 Charlemagne supposedly built his churches and palaces following Solomon’s example. The Sistine Chapel is, in a medieval way, modeled explicitly on the Temple of Jerusalem by repeating its dimensions.65 ‘A story is related of the founding of Santa Maria Maggiore by Pope Liberius, who drew the ground plan of the future church on the site that was indicated to him during the miraculous snow fall on the night of 4–5 August 352.’66 His vision of the temple represented a paradox, a building located on a particular site but also a place which was increasingly regarded as a universal and transcendent scale model. Universal and transcendent scale models can be considered archetypes.67 Here it is important to consider the psychology of Carl Jung, who believed that archetypes were the patterns of thought and the imagery that emerges from the collective unconscious of humankind. For example, Jung describes the deep emotional appeal of the mandala, the square surrounded 31

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 32

Architectural Model as Machine

by, or including, a circle. Numerous buildings, such as the plan of a church in the form of a basilica, have been based on such a form.68 The concept of the temple, although originally connected with a sacred site, seems to have been transformed into a universal archetypical scale model. Christians interpreted the temple as an archetypical scale model predecessor of the church, while the Jews saw it as a realization of their concept of invisible things itself. ‘It is, therefore, not an ill-founded notion but a sign of spiritual continuity that the reformers of Christianity and of Judaism both set out to build ‘temples’ to God in search for a wider spiritual concept.’69 The creators of the temple attempted to define their concept of the divine through their designs.

Conclusion Traditionally, humans have attempted to define an understandable measurement of nature through the mechanisms of their scale models. In the Egyptian period, the scale model was connected to a potentially counterfeit art that was used to influence nature or future events. Though the Greek philosophers warned of difficulties with the Egyptian position, Greek architects through an unquestioning acceptance of past traditions may have also created illusions. The Roman architect Vitruvius, by recommending a liberal education, attempts to improve on the use of models. Medieval scale models demonstrate the concept of the architect as mechanic, and reflect the debate over who best could interpret the message of the scale model, the church or the craftsman architect. The Renaissance is the period when architects set the stage for our current relationship with the architectural small-scale model. Finally, the Temple of Jerusalem is a prime example of the scale model as a maquette. The temple is seen as a divining mechanism for defining the idea of the divine through design. The next chapter will present a critical analysis of the importance of these observations on the historical architectural scale model.

Notes 1. According to the Oxford Dictionary the etymology of the word ‘devine’ comes not only from the Latin divinus, meaning pertaining to a deity, but also from the Latin divinare, which means to foretell or predict. 32

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 33

Define/Divine/Design

Giambattista Vico offers us an interesting insight into our relationship with the divine in his work the Ideal Eternal History. He believed that humankind has gone through three phases of development called the divine age, the heroic age and the human age. During the divine age, humans believed that everything was a god or was done or made by God.a This was an age of ritual semiosis with religious acts or divine ceremonies.b Vico notes that during this period humans communicated through divine hieroglyphics or by means of gestures or physical objects which had natural relations with the ideas.c a. Giambattista, The New Science (1725), trans, Bergin, T.G. and Fish, MH., (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 922. b. Ibid., p. 929. c. Ibid., p. 431. 2. Gombrich, E.H., The Story of Art, (Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984), p. 20. 3. Ibid., p. 19. 4. Art historians such as E.H. Gombrich, Helen Gardner, H.W. Janson, etc., place the beginning of art during the Paleolithic period, about 30 000 B.C. 5. Lethaby, W.R., Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, (London, UK: The Architectural Press Ltd., 1974), p. 1. 6. Ibid., p. 2. 7. Aristotle, Mechanical Problems, translated by W.S. Hett, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1955), p. 331. 8. Lethaby, op. cit., p. 2. 9. Kostof, Spiro, A History of Architecture, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 21. 10. The word ‘monument’ comes from the Latin monumentum, which means to remind, and the suffix -ment, which denotes an action, resulting state or product. 11. Gombrich, op.cit., p. 31. 12. Ibid., p. 21. 13. Smith, E. Baldwin, Egyptian Architecture as Cultural Expression, (New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century Co., Inc, 1938), p. 61. 14. Kostof, Spiro, The Architect, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 3. 15. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, Frank Granger (Trans.) De Architectura, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 7–11. 16. Hobson, Christine, Exploring the World of the Pharaohs, (London, UK: The Paul Press Limited, 1987), p. 93. 17. Magic is the use of various techniques, as spells, charms, etc., that presumably assures human control over that which is above 33

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 34

Architectural Model as Machine

or beyond that which is explainable by natural law or phenomena. According to Edward B. Taylor, it is the work of the magician to attempt to discover, to foretell, and to cause such events.a Winfried Noth tells us that magic practices operate by means of signs and that its origins can be closely connected with the early history or semiotics. Noth believes that magic signs seem to be motivated by the type of effect that they are assumed to have.b a. Taylor, Edward B., Primitive Culture, (London, UK: Murry, 1871), p. 104. b. Noth, Winfried, Handbook of Semiotics, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 188–189. 18. Bourriau, Janine, Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom, (Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1988), pp. 85–86. There are numerous examples of Egyptian small-scale models and those discussed here are simply offered as a crosssection. The funerary small-scale model of a residence, taken form the ninth dynasty tomb of Mehenkwetre found in Thebes, offers a typical example of a carefully detailed replica from this period. The small-scale model was produced with coniferous wood and painted with gesso. Doors, windows and columns were carefully carved. The pool (in the middle of the courtyard) was lined with a copper sheet which could be filled with water. Trees were wood with carved branches; leaves and fruit were doweled together and covered with gesso. Another typical example was a small-scale model of a granary from the eleventh dynasty, made of painted clay. The outside was painted with everyday scenes of granary operation. The granary itself was composed of two storeys and was set behind high walls. The grain storage areas consisted of 10 chambers; access to the top five chambers was by an open staircase which rose from the narrow corridor leading to the entrance. The inside walls, floors, and stairs were painted yellow and the roofs of the upper chambers were painted gray. Small-scale model sailing boats were also found in many tombs. A small-scale model boat found in a twelfth dynasty offers an example. This boat was made of painted wood and linen sails. The pilot stands in the bows with outstretched arms. Other sailors work the rigging and steer the boat. It has generally been noted that if small-scale boat models are present in a tomb, there are usually two of them, one rigged for sailing up river and the other for rowing downstream. Second only to the need for supplies of food and drink in the afterlife was the desire of the dead for mobility, represented by free passage on the river. 34

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 35

Define/Divine/Design

a. Hohauser, Stanford, Architectural and Interior Models, ( New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1970), p. 8. b. Hobson, Christine, Exploring the World of the Pharaohs, (London, UK: The Paul Press Limited, 1987), pp. 104 and 107. 19. This is similar to the position of E.H. Gombrich in the introduction of Art and Illusion. He takes the position that Egyptian art reflected the Egyptian belief system. 20. E.H. Gombrich notes that Greek temples had a different sense of scale than Egyptian buildings. He writes, ‘One feels that they were built by human beings, and for human beings.’a Helen Gardner writes about Greek architecture, ‘Their significant buildings began primarily as simple shrines to protect the statues of their gods. More and more attention was lavished on these, until possibly the belief arose that the qualities of the god were embodied in the structures themselves.’b a. Gombrich, E.H., The Story of Art, p. 51. b. Gardner, Helen, Art Through the Ages, (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980), p. 119. 21. Coulton, J.J., Ancient Greek Architects at Work, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), p. 58. 22. Hersey, George, The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988), pp. 1–2. 23. Bundgaard, J.A., Mnesicles a Greek Architect at Work, Copenhagen: Scandanavian University Press, 1957. 24. Coulton, op. cit., p. 58. 25. Ibid., pp. 56–57. 26. Kostof, The Architect, op. cit., pp. 25–26. 27. Wilson, III, Benjamin Franklin, The Parthenon of Pericles and its Reproduction in America, (Nashville, TN: Parthenon Press, 1937), p. 33. 28. Ibid., pp. 14–15. 29. An interesting explanation of ‘simulacrum’ can be found in Jean Baudrillard’s book, Simulations, (New York, NY: Semiotext, Inc., 1983). 30. Janson, H.J., History of Art, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1963), p. 135. 31. Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture, Translated by Morris Hicky Morgan (New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1960), pp. 315–316. 32. Ibid., p. 316. 33. Ibid., pp. 5–6. 34. Ibid., p. 316. 35. Kostof writes, ‘For the Romans architecture, both functionally and symbolically, was the mistress art, and an architect was someone of consequence. Cicero ranks architecture with medicine 35

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 36

Architectural Model as Machine

and teaching: Vitruvius speaks of so great a profession [diciplina] as this.’a a. Kostof, The Architect, op.cit., p. 28. 36. A famous example of this type of sculpture can be found in Ulm cathedral. It shows the mayor of the city, Ludwig Kraft, and his wife resting a model of the cathedral on the shoulders of the architect. 37. Kostof, The Architect, op.cit., p. 63. 38. Ibid., p. 63. 39. Gardner, Helen, Art Through the Ages, (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1980), p. 318. 40. Suger, Encyclopedia Britannica, (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1985), p. 357. The reader can also refer to Otto von Simson’s The Gothic Cathedral, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962), pp. 61–90. 41. Villard de Honnecourt, T. Bowie, ed., The Sketchbook of Villard de Honnecourt, (Bloomington, IN, 1959). 42. Barasch, Moshe, Theories of Art, from Plato to Winckelmann, (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1985), p. 82. 43. The term ‘Renaissance’ is widely understood to denote a new age in the history of western civilization developing from the conclusion of the Middle Ages. The term denotes the rebirth (French renaissance, from Italian renascenze, more commonly rinascimenta or revival of learning and of the arts) supposed to separate the Middle Ages and the modern period. 44. Kostof, The Architect, p. 109. It is important to note that this book offers one of the better sources of material on the historical use of the architectural model. 45. Ibid., p. 109. 46. Ibid., p. 142. 47. Alberti, Leon Battista, On the Art of Building in Ten Books, Translator Joseph Rykwert, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988), p. 33. 48. Ibid., pp. 33–34. 49. Ibid., p. 34. 50. Ibid., p. 34. 51. Ibid., p. 422. 52. Ibid., p. 34. 53. Ibid., p. 35. 54. Ibid., p. 34. 55. Ibid., p. 35. 56. Ibid., p. 313. 57. Gove, op. cit., p. 2353. The word ‘temple’ comes from the word templum which, in its original Latin meaning, defines a measured sacred space on earth or in heaven. 58. Smith, Alan H., Encyclopaedia Americana, (Danbury, CT: Encyclopedia Americana, 1982), p. 459. 36

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 37

Define/Divine/Design

59. Ibid., p. 460. 60. Rosenau, Helen, Vision of the Temple, (London, UK: Oresko Books Ltd, 1979), p. 7. 61. Ibid., p. 14. 62. Wittkower, Rudolf, Architectural Principle in the Age of Humanism, (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1971), p. 121. 63. Gove, op. cit., p. 460. 64. Rykwert, Joseph, On Adam’s House in Paradise, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1981), p. 122. 65. Ibid., p. 122. 66. Rosenau, op. cit., p. 15. 67. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word ‘archetype’ come from the Latin archetypum which means first impression, stamp or type. 68. Rosenau, op. cit., p. 163. 69. Ibid., p. 163.

37

ALBE-01.qxd 22/7/04 9:46 PM Page 38

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 39

C H A P T E R

2

The changing mechanism of the scale model

2.1 Roman relief of Daedalus and Icarus

In the first chapter, I proposed that architectural models should be viewed as a form of maquette. These models were not only employed to foretell the future of a building but were also connected, through the building, to a culture’s more general search for meaning. This is humankind’s general attempt at defining the purpose of their cosmos. The perceived ability of the architect to engage the scale model in this more general search

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 40

Architectural Model as Machine

2.2 Undergraduate student’s model Kendra’s studio

changes depending upon the prevailing social conditions. Throughout history, different societies have placed varying degrees of trust in the architect’s ability to correctly interpret and demonstrate the meanings of their culture. Although the relationships of Daedalus and Plato to the creative arts are well documented, in combination they present an important critical foundation necessary for understanding later developments within this work. Through the myth of Daedalus and the writings of Plato, as well as other examples, this chapter will analyze the influences behind the architect’s changing relationship to the scale model (Figures 2.2–2.4).

I

2.3 Undergraduate student’s model

2.4 Undergraduate student’s model

Daedalus was the prototypical mythical Greek architect.1 Thomas Bulfinch writes, ‘The labyrinth from which Theseus escaped by the means of the clew of Ariadne was built by Daedalus, a most skillful artificer. It was an edifice with numberless winding passages and turns opening into one another, and seeming to have neither beginning nor end, like the river Meander, which returns on itself, and flows now onward, now backward, in its course to the sea.’2 The creation of the labyrinth by Daedalus may be connected with the creation of architectural scale models.3 This section posits that the labyrinth serves as a metaphor of human existence and that Daedalus’ creation of the labyrinth can seem as a paradigm of order, the ‘primordial ideal of architecture.’4 Daedalus maintained an important position within his society. Francoise Frontisi-Ducroux writes, All sources agree that he (Daedalus) was an Athenian, son or grandson of Metion, a man who had been endowed with ‘metis’, a kind of practical intelligence and ingenuity which could be deployed in many ways but was mostly associated with the wisdom of craftsmanship in the Athenian tradition. While in Athens, Daedalus worked as a sculptor. He was the reputed inventor of agalmata, statues of the gods which had open eyes and moveable limbs, a compelling manifestation of the mystery of divinity (the verb ‘to see’ was reciprocal in Greek: whoever saw was also seen, and the blind were invisible). These statues were so lifelike that Plato remarked upon their amazing and disconcerting

40

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 41

The changing mechanism of the scale model

mobility, which was accomplished with techniques that are clearly those of the ‘daidala’. Daedalus was also an inventor. Pliny enumerates the instruments that he invented while in Athens, including the saw, the axe, glue and, more significant for architecture, the plumb-line (cathetos or perpendiculum).5 Alberto Perez-Gomez makes the connection between the name Daedalus and the Greek word daidala which means to make or manufacture. The name Daedalus, more specifically, has been suggested by Perez-Gomez to be a play on the Greek word daidala which appears in archaic literature as a complement of the verb to make, manufacture, to forge, to weave, to place on, or to see. Daidala were the implements of early society: defensive works, arms, furniture, and so forth. Perez-Gomez writes, The ‘daidala’ in Homer seem to possess mysterious powers. They are luminous – they reveal the reality they represent. It is a metaphysical ‘light’ of diverse and often bizarre qualities, evoking fear and admiration. ‘Daidala’, particularly jewels, are endowed with ‘charis’ (charisma) and thus with ‘Kalo’ (beauty) and ‘amalga’ (festive religious exaltation). ‘Charis’ is a product of ‘techne’ (art, skill, craft) but it is also a god-given grace. This mysterious emanation, whether artificially created or given by the gods, has the power of seduction. ‘Daidala’ are therefore capable of creating dangerous illusions. ‘Daidala’, or art objects, can appear to be what they are not, and the metal plates give a value to the objects that they would not otherwise have. The principal value of ‘daidala’ is that of enabling inanimate matter to become magically alive, of ‘reproducing’ life rather than ‘representing’ it. Hence the word also designates ‘thaumata’, marvelous animated machines with brilliant suits of armor and scintillating eyes. The more primitive Homeric texts emphasize the ability of the ‘daidalos’ to seem alive . . .6 The story of Daedalus is a myth which offers an archetypical explanation of the architect’s position within early societies. This is a recurring theme concerning the Greek architect that reflected prevalent Greek cultural ideals. The myth expressed and reinforced the social position, customs and cultural ties of the architect within Greek society. Though it is not necessary 41

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 42

Architectural Model as Machine

to regard the tale of Daedalus as a true story, it is commonly believed that the myth offers poetic insights into reality. The myth of Daedalus, like an architectural scale model, can be connected to the concept of analogy.7 The term in Greek later came to mean the consideration of similarities in concepts or things. Analogies are forms of inference: from the assertion of similarities between two things, is then reasoned their likely similarity in other respects. This myth contains analogies important for understanding its meaning, and serves as an explanation for all preclassical architects. The myth of Daedalus continues with the following story, which may clarify the implementation of the scale model in classical Greek society. Having killed his nephew Talos out of professional jealousy, Daedalus was forced to leave Athens. He went to Crete, where he served in the court of King Minos at Knossos. Among his amazing achievements there was the construction of a ‘daidalon’, a life-like wooden cow covered with leather in which Queen Pasiphae hid in order to seduce a magnificent bull (a gift from Poseidon to the Minoan King) with which she had fallen in love. Daedalus’ success with this task confirmed, once again, his skill as a demiurge. When, after seducing the bull, the queen gave birth to the Minotaur, Daedalus was asked to design a structure to contain this monster.8 Certainly Daedalus can be linked to the daidala through his automata such as lifelike statues, machine-like bull (which he built for Queen Pasiphae), his wax-and-feather flying machine and finally his labyrinth at Knosses. Daedalus’ ability to create the machine-like daidala placed him in an extremely powerful position in his society. Humankind has a basic need to create order from chaos. Daedalus’s structure, the labyrinth at Knossos, serves as a scale model of man’s attempt to formulate such an order. It is not important that we know whether Daedalus’s labyrinth actually existed, since it is generally accepted that the labyrinth is an analogy for a paradigm, the shared assumption that constitutes a society’s attempt to set the standards of order, the ‘primordial idea’ of architecture. Perez-Gomez writes, ‘The labyrinth is a metaphor of human existence: ever-changing, full of surprise, uncertain, conveying the impression of disorder.’9 Daedalus created the daidala (mechanism) of the labyrinth, 42

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 43

The changing mechanism of the scale model

which symbolizes the paradigm which is a form of scale model. But why was this labyrinth created? Daedalus designed the labyrinth to contain Pasiphae’s monstrous offspring, the Minotaur, half man, half bull. The idea of the Minotaur as monster is derived from the Latin monstrum, which means portent (an omen or prodigy) and from monere, which means to warn.10 Monsters have similarities to soothsayers.11 The divine monster symbolized a seemingly chaotic message from the divine Gods. Consequently, the paradigm-like (scale model) labyrinth attempts to demonstrate and define an understandable boundary of standards around the message of the divine (Figure 2.5). The Minotaur/monster was created from a union between a gift from the gods and a mortal. Daedalus, the mythological architect, created the labyrinth, and its significance has been directly related to the idea of dance by PerezGomez. He tells us, ‘In archaic times, the dance was the architecture. The space of architecture was the space of ritual and not an objective, geometrical entity.’12 Perez-Gomez also

2.5 Theseus and the Minotaur mosaic in the House of the Labyrinth at Pompeii

43

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 44

Architectural Model as Machine

finds that after slaying the Minotaur, Theseus (who represented the Greek mythical hero) engaged in a dance which imitated the meandering of a labyrinth. He writes, ‘The connection between this image and the Trojan games described by Virgil in the Aeneid has often been observed, as have the possible relationships between these ritual dances and the rituals of the foundation of cities in Roman times, which made the city secure; the ritual was so important, in fact, that it had to be re-enacted periodically.’13 A ritual is an established form of conducting a religious or other rite or any practice or behavior repeated in a prescribed manner. Religion can be considered a form of understanding the unknown developed by means of a set of beliefs (we might consider these boundaries) which attempts to explain through worship the true meaning of the universe or the ideal. Both ritual and religion offer a way of understanding something, a shared assumption which attempts to explain the truth of a phenomena. Ritual and religion are forms of paradigms created to explain, in an understandable way, the truth of invisible things. Religion and philosophy have similar goals in that they both attempt to explain the unknown. Since Daedalus maintained a great influence on his society’s rituals, he may have been seen as in a position to influence or at least compete with the philosophy of the time. Unfortunately, since Daedalus was considered by the classical Greeks to be simply an uneducated craftsman, this degree of influence may have been somewhat unsettling to some. Perez-Gomez believes that Daedalus can be seen as an architect-craftsman of ambiguous character. He writes, He [Daedalus] opened the statue’s eyes to reveal the divinity of the gods, but he also concealed a monster within a labyrinth and a deceptive woman in a machine of leather and wood. The craftsman creates form and beauty, but also illusions. In giving form and meaning to matter, art is also in danger of falsifying the divine truth. This ambiguity, which is a part of the human condition, is as prevalent now as it was then. In order to perform his fundamentally demiurgic function, still a ‘poiesis’, Daedalus was possessed of ‘metis’, an intelligence from which it is impossible to disassociate manual dexterity, which in fact is manifested only through the act of ‘creation’.14 44

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 45

The changing mechanism of the scale model

In classical Greek society, Daedalus was seen as a demiurge, a subordinate god who fashions the sensible world in the light of external ideas. Daedalus fashioned his daidala (machines) through manufacturing or fabrication. He manufactured the labyrinth as a means of modeling or demonstrating in an understandable way the chaotic warnings of the monster, which is itself a form of model. However, it is possible to fabricate or manufacture a lie, fiction or illusion of truth. This may be why, in some Gnostic systems, the demiurge was seen as an inferior, not absolutely intelligent, deity who was the creator of the material world and was frequently identified with the creator God of the Old Testament.15

II The ancient Greeks made extensive use of special effects through many marvelous mechanical contrivances. These machines included statues that could be made to flow with milk and wine, flames that could be made to appear on alters, drums and cymbals that would sound without human assistance – or so it appeared. These were machines that created illusions of reality. The Greek public’s amazement at the magic of these special effects may have caused them to overlook the negative connotations of these illusions creating the potential of a mistaken perception of reality, a mistaken belief or concept. An illusion can create a deceptive appearance of an object through a false belief.16 This may be one reason Plato, the classical Greek philosopher, so degraded and devalued the architect and artist. To Plato, architects as well as other creative artists were mere makers of images, fabricators or manufacturers of shadows and illusions, purveyors of make-believe (Figure 2.6). Plato places them and their work in the lowest level of his divided line of knowledge.17 Moshe Barasch further explains this situation when he writes, The low regard in which artists were held in the classical period is amply attested. The sculptor or painter were called a ‘banausos’, that is a mechanic. In a broader context the term carried the meaning low and vulgar. Burckhardt traced the derivation of this attitude towards the visual artist to the alienation of classical Greek society from any kind of manual work. The sculptor and painter, working with their hands, are merely mechanics. Even among the Gods, Hephaistos, blacksmith and armorer 45

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 46

Architectural Model as Machine

2.6 Plato’s cave

(and thus some divine projection of the artist), is a limping and sooty figure; he plays the cuckold and evokes laughter. As mechanics, artists are excluded from any participation in higher realms of values. To Plato the poet and the musician are inspired, and inspiration is transmitted even to the bards who only recite the poet’s songs, but sculptors and painters are seen as working solely according to the established rules of mechanics.18 Plato discusses the problems of the manufacturing and fabrication of shadows and illusions in his famous allegory of the Cave. In the beginning of Book VII of the Republic, Plato asks the reader to think of humankind as living in a cave whose entrance is open to the sunlight. Within this cave are prisoners who have spent their entire lives chained in such a way that they cannot move. These prisoners have never seen the sunlight and can only view the flickering shadows of real objects cast upon the cave wall. To the chained prisoners these shadows appear to be reality. Imagine if one of the prisoners was removed from the cave and was allowed to view in the sunlight, the reality of the objects previously seen only as shadows. If returned to the cave as a prisoner, this person would have had great difficulty in readjusting to the chains and darkness. Plato believed that this individual’s observations of reality would have been ridiculed and scorned by the other prisoners. 46

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 47

The changing mechanism of the scale model

In his symbolic narrative, Plato alludes to issues important to our study of the thinking mechanism of scale models. It should be noted that it was Plato, not Greek architects (none of their dissertations exist), who developed the allegories which serve as an understandable standard used in referring to invisible things. Plato the philosopher did not seem to trust the competing architectural craftsmen to make correct interpretations of the ‘flickering shadows’ seen in the scale model. Builders of architecture, statues and machines in general were seen as being in bondage to ‘shadows,’ making interpretations without knowing the truth. Plato believed that the world that appeared to the senses of the Greek craftsman architect was not the real (true) world. He seemingly placed the Greek architect in the role of the mechanic who should maintain the machine, not create it. Plato believed that there are two realms of things: the real realm of perfect unchanging eternal ideals or forms, which is known only through our intellect, and the illusory, or less real, realm of concrete, individual, changing objects known by our senses and existing as imperfect scale models of invisible things. Plato believed that the ability to correctly interpret the relationship between these two realms is developed through philosophic knowledge of the true, good and beautiful, which is necessary in developing decisions affecting society (Figure 2.7). It is likely that Plato felt that the craftsman architects represented by Daedalus were manufacturing disturbing influences on standards of society through uninformed interpretations of their scale models’ allusions.19 It is allusion that allows the architect to make an indirect mention, or an indirect but meaningful or pointed reference, to something greater than simply the future building. By restricting the architect’s ability to interpret, it is possible that Plato was also hampering the architect’s ability to develop. The architectural scale model helps the architect to create allusion and can be used to destroy illusion (Plate 6, Figures 2.8–2.10). Stage sets, trompe l’oeils and certain types of architectural drawings all have the ability to deceive the viewer by presenting a false impression of reality because they are viewed from only one position. The allusion of the design scale model can permit the development of analogy and interpretation. When architects manipulate their scale model mechanisms they play with their imaginations. They can use the scale model to discover the unknown. Allusions and analogies appear to architects through the mental projection of 47

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 48

Architectural Model as Machine

2.7

Artifiiosi et cvriosi moti

thoughts on to the framework offered by the machine-like scale model. It is through scale models that architects can develop the allusions and analogies used to participate in a broader search for true definition. It can be inferred that Plato did not trust the ability of uneducated craftsmen architects to create true definitions through allusions, since they were too easily swayed by illusions. Plato offers the idea of a well-educated philosopherking as a means of setting the standards for Greek society. What qualities are necessary for those who would be capable of developing the standards required to wisely pilot the ship of state? The answer Plato proposes is excellent discipline, a high level of education, and talent. The high level of education seems to be absent from the background of Daedalus, the mechanic-craftsman-architect, who held such power over the interpretations made through the mechanism of the scale model. 48

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 49

The changing mechanism of the scale model

Aristotle may offer the reader a compromise between the positions of Daedalus and Plato. He makes the following observations in his essay on Mechanics: ‘Our wonder is excited, firstly, by phenomenon which occur in accordance with nature but of which we do not know the cause, and secondly by those which are produced by art despite nature for the benefit of mankind.’20 Aristotle is implying that humans have an inner fascination with understanding, defining and producing things employed for controlling or transcending nature. Aristotle continues, ‘Nature often operates contrary to human interest; for she always follows the same course without deviation, whereas human interest is always changing. When, therefore, we have to do something contrary to nature, the difficulty of it causes us perplexity and art has to be called to our aid.’21 Aristotle points out that there is but one true course to nature, that this course is not always to the benefit of humans, and that the opinion of how to control the course of nature for our own benefit changes with our situation. He believes that these changes cause perplexity which can be resolved by art or, in our case, the thinking mechanism of the architectural scale model. Thus, Aristotle writes, ‘The kind of art which helps us in such perplexities we call Mechanical Skill. The words of the poet Antiphon are quite true: “Mastered by Nature, we o’ercome by Art”.’22 Aristotle is known to be more sympathetic to the role of artists than Plato; he knew of the power of art to master nature. He writes, ‘Instances of this are those cases in which the less prevails over the greater, and where forces of small motive power move great weights – in fact, practically all those problems which we call Mechanical Problems.’23

2.8 House X

2.9 House X

III Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, the Roman architect and theorist, composed a treatise on architecture in 10 books entitled De Architectura. It is within the discussion of machinery in Vitruvius’ tenth book on architecture that we find reference to the small-scale model. He writes,

2.10 House X

Now all machinery is generated by nature, and the revolution of the universe guides and controls. For first indeed, unless we would observe and contemplate the continuous motion of the sun, moon and also the five planets; unless these revolved by the device of nature we should not have 49

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 50

Architectural Model as Machine

known their light in due season nor the ripening of the harvest. Since then our fathers had observed this to be so, they took precedents from nature; imitating them and led on by what is divine, they developed the comforts of life by their inventions.24 This passage from Vitruvius connects the architect, the smallscale model, the machine, invention, and the imitation of the divine (Figure 2.11). The thought of uneducated architects making such culturally important connections would have concerned Plato. Vitruvius also appears aware of such concerns. In his first chapter he writes, ‘The science of architecture depends upon many disciplines and various apprenticeships which are carried out in other arts. His personal service consists in craftsmanship and technology.’ Clearly Roman architects remained involved with the practice/craftsman side of building. Does this position downgrade the position of the architect, as in Plato’s argument? Vitruvius answers, ‘So architects who without culture aim at manual skill cannot gain a prestige corresponding to their labors, while those who trust to theory and literature obviously follow a shadow and not reality. But those who have mastered both, like men equipped in full armor, soon acquire influence and attain their purpose.’25 This attempt by Vitruvius to find a balance between the theory and practice of architecture recognizes the Aristotelian position about the importance of machines. Vitruvius attempts to rectify the problems of the craftsman architect as described by Plato.26 Without the ability to practice, architects are not complete, since their buildings will not successfully be built. However, the architect without a solid education cannot hope to develop an architectural theory that is not merely an illusion. The connection between theory and practice becomes important to this study when considering the thinking mechanism of the architectural scale model as a form of maquette. Vitruvius alludes to this connection when he writes (Book 1, C1, 3), Both in general and especially in architecture are these two things found; that which signifies and that which is signified. That which is signified is the thing proposed about which we speak; that which signifies is the demonstration unfolded in systems of precepts. Wherefore, a man who is to follow the architectural profession manifestly needs to have experience of both kinds. He must 50

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 51

The changing mechanism of the scale model

2.11 De architectura libri deci

have both a natural gift and also readiness to learn. He should be a man of letters, a skillful draftsman, a mathematician, familiar with historical studies, a diligent student of philosophy, acquainted with music; not ignorant of medicine, learned in the responses of jurisconsults, familiar with astronomy and astronomical calculations.27 Vitruvius believed that the architect must have a natural gift or a talent for architecture and a desire to learn. Certainly the 51

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 52

Architectural Model as Machine

architect has a great deal to learn about the profession, but beyond the craft of architecture, what should the student of this field know? Roman architects were heavily influenced by the Greeks, and we know that Vitruvius was aware of the writings of Plato, since he mentions him frequently in his Ten Books. It is thus possible to make connections between the education of Plato’s Guardians, the ruling class set forth in Book V of the Republic, and that recommended for the architect by Vitruvius. Plato believed his philosopher-ruler (guardian) class should be selected from those who show talent and sufficiently high intelligence. He tells us that they will then be educated in order to gain knowledge of true being, from knowing the changing objects of the visible world to the eternal truth of the intelligible world. Vitruvius tried to balance theory and practice. He recognized that an architect with knowledge only of theory was half an architect. Vitruvius recommended a moderate knowledge of the various subjects involved with architecture. He probably was concerned that the architect should not be creating illusions of the truth; therefore, he recommends that the architect should know philosophy as a means of explaining the true nature of things. In conclusion (Book I, CI, 18), Vitruvius writes, ‘But in respect to the meaning of my craft and the principles which it involves, I hope and undertake to expound them with assured authority, not only to persons engaged in building but also to the learned world.’28 It can be inferred that Vitruvius is also reacting to a change in the architect’s relationship with the thinking mechanism of the scale model. Daedalus created the machine-like scale model, but seemingly lacked the ability to understand the difference between the illusion and the allusion of its message. Plato may have mistrusted Greek architects because they appeared to lack the broad-based education necessary to correctly interpret the meaning of the scale model. Plato’s attempt at regulating the illusions of the craftsman architects would have also affected their ability to employ allusions. Plato probably believed that architect mechanics should no longer create the machine; instead they should merely maintain it. Architects were not trusted to correctly develop the important analogies. Plato’s educated guardian class was trusted to formulate the paradigms needed to truthfully explain their society’s perception of invisible things. Could Vitruvius be attempting to solve the rift between the theory of Plato, and the craft of Daedalus? 52

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 53

The changing mechanism of the scale model

Certainly, Vitruvius recommends that the architect have a solid background in the practice of architecture combined with an excellent general education; consequently, the architect could successfully design with the scale model. He believed the architect could produce successful interpretations and should present those interpretations through well-measured buildings. However, Vitruvius did not restrict himself solely to the practice of architecture for he also wrote to explain his theories.

IV For the early Christians the arts were closely associated with the cultures of Greece and Rome, from whose paganism Christianity had come to rescue the world. This condition must have developed a certain suspicion towards classical arts, although this suspicion did not necessarily include classical philosophy. For example, the influential church theologian, St Augustine, was himself influenced by Plato. An important debate concerning the arts occurred during the early Middle Ages. This was the famous debate between Iconoclasts and Iconodules. This philosophical battle contested the theological question: what form should comprise the image of a statue representing Christ or any other divine figure? More significantly, the debate questioned whether it is possible for man to create images of invisible things. If one accepts that an architectural scale model can serve as a representation of invisible things, then the scale model can be regarded as a form of icon.29 An icon is an image, likeness or representation of something. It is a picture or a sign that is like an image of the thing it indicates or represents.30 A person who is an iconoclast, which literally means image destroyer, would disagree with this position; someone who was an icondule would support it. The Iconoclastic controversy occurred in the Byzantine Empire during the eighth and ninth centuries. Moshe Barasch, in Theories of Art, writes about this controversy: To use one of the earliest formulations showing the awareness of this complete contrast between the divine and the image, found in elements of Alexandria’s Exhortation to the Greeks: ‘a statue is really lifeless matter shaped by a craftsman’s hand; but, in our view, the image of God is not an object of sense made from matter perceived by the senses, but a mental object. God, that is, the 53

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 54

Architectural Model as Machine

only true God, is perceived not by the senses but by the mind.’ Here, then, an abysmal gap is opened up. How can the immaterial and invisible be revealed and appropriately represented in a material work of art presented to the senses?31 Horace makes a similar point when he writes of a wooden statue of a god who, empowered with speech, relates, ‘Once upon a time, I was the trunk of a wild fig tree, useless log, when a carpenter, after some doubt as to whether to make me a privy or a Priapus, decided to make me a god. So I am the greatest deterrent of thieves and birds.’32 Could the creators of scale models be faced with a similar dilemma (Plate 7)? The Iconoclasts disapproved of icon worship for such reasons as the prohibition against images in the Ten Commandments and to protect against idolatry. They believed that all pictorial representations of Christ and the saints were regarded as idols, and any reverence given to such images was seen as idolatrous. Most important for understanding the scale model was the more widespread dispute over what was a valid, or ‘true,’ image. The Iconoclasts believed that for an image to be true it must be of the same essence as the invisible thing it depicted. This argument leads to the conclusion that a true picture is not a picture at all. Either a picture is true and identical with the invisible thing, which makes it not an image at all, or the picture maintains its own specific character as an icon and then it has no common essence with the invisible thing. In this case, the icon cannot be considered true and it is not actually an image of the invisible thing. The Iconoclasts required a complete rejection of the icon as a logical and necessary result of their theology. They confronted every believer with an ultimatum: either the image is identical with the invisible thing, or it is altogether different and in result they have nothing in common. Because a ‘true’ image of the divine was impossible, actual icons were considered false ‘idols’ inhabited by demons.33 The defenders of images were convinced that the icon bridged the gap between the human and the divine. They believed that the image partakes in the invisible thing, allowing the viewer to grasp the essence of the original. Icons, however, were never considered by their defenders to be identical with the invisible thing. The Iconodules emphasized that although the icon participated with the invisible thing, it was different from its subject. Theodore of Studion wrote, ‘Nobody is that mad to believe that the shadow and the truth [i.e. the object 54

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 55

The changing mechanism of the scale model

that casts the shadow] . . . should be of the same substance.’34 Icons were said to be ‘reminders’ serving as ‘symbols’ of what they represent. The world was seen as a system of images or symbols which suggest the invisible behind it, in which the icon participates.35 It can be inferred that the architectural scale model could also serve as a form of icon. These models could then be seen as receiver mechanisms or conduits to the divine. They could also be employed as an important and acceptable means of representing the divine. It should also be considered that the scale model does not need to be of the same substance as the invisible thing. This conception of the scale model as icon means that there was a split between those who could theorize and interpret the meaning of the models/icons and those who manufactured models/icons through their craft. St Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274), whose work was heavily influenced by Aristotle, attempted to rectify this split. This rectification may have also allowed a certain detachment of the scale model from theological control. St Thomas believed that man’s mind cannot fully comprehend God’s nature but can discover the truth by excluding from the concept of God every aspect that implies defect. This may be why St Thomas attempted to separate theology from philosophy into two separate branches of knowledge. He asserted that philosophy developed by the unaided use of human reason and that theology depends upon divine revelation and church teaching. Some truths were seen as proper to philosophy while other areas belonged to both areas, making it possible for the existence of God to be known through both revelation and reason. He argued that there did not need to be a conflict between faith and reason, but that true theology and sound science aided each other.36 By introducing the Aristotelian view, St Thomas helped lay a foundation for the reintroduction of an architectural theory more directly created by architects. This theory allowed a new freedom by which architects could more directly interpret the message of their small-scale models. The messages received from the models were no longer tightly controlled by the theologians of the church. Although the church’s concept of a perfect God remained the main explanation of invisible things, new means of measuring invisible things were considered acceptable, and thus new interpretations could be accepted.37 55

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:53 PM Page 56

Architectural Model as Machine

V The beginning of the Renaissance saw a rebirth of classical learning and a revival of Greek humanism. Classical Greek humanism was human and nature centered. This shift inspired Renaissance architects to celebrate individual works of genius and to repudiate the Christian themes of the worthlessness of both mankind and nature in relation to the supernatural world. There was a belief that humans could improve their own condition without direct supernatural help and that subsequently they had a duty to do so. ‘Man is the measure of all things’ was a key idea of this period. This notion led to a renewed faith in humanity’s intellectual and spiritual resources as means of measuring, defining and understanding nature. Leon Battista Alberti writes of these humanistic values in the prologue to De re ardificatoria: ‘Many and various arts, which help to make the course of our life more agreeable and cheerful, were handed down to us by our ancestors, who had acquired them by much effort and care. All of the greatest possible use to humanity, yet we realize that each has some integral property, which shows it has a different advantage to offer from the others.’38 Alberti seemingly believed that architecture was one of these many acceptable methods of improving the human condition in regards to nature. However, it should be remembered that he served as a papal functionary so it seems unlikely that he would have strayed from the acceptable standards set by church doctrine concerning who created nature.39 In the end, God’s truth would have been considered the key to understanding invisible things, but different methods of discovering this truth were now considered acceptable. Alberti, for example, points to the many important lessons learned from the classics, and it is well known that he based his book on the work of Vitruvius. Alberti, like Vitruvius, believed that the architect should be more than a mere craftsman. He writes, ‘Him, I consider the architect, who by sure and wonderful reason and method, knows both how to devise through his own mind and energy, and to realize by construction, whatever can be most fitted out for the noble needs of man, by the movement of weights and the joining and massing of bodies. To do this he must have an understanding and knowledge of all the highest and most noble disciplines.’40 How did Alberti’s position on the architect develop?

56

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:54 PM Page 57

The changing mechanism of the scale model

2.12 Model for the reconstruction of St Peter’s

To understand this, we should summarize the key points of this chapter. The craftsman, represented by Daedalus, maintained an important and persuasive position in society. Craftsmen controlled the skills necessary for creating mechanisms which greatly affected their society’s daily lives. Plato showed concern that mere craftsmen did not have the education necessary for understanding the ramifications of their creations. However, as Aristotle points out, mechanical skills were necessary for overcoming problems caused by nature. Vitruvius believed that the solution lay with an educated craftsman, the architect, who understood both the theory and practice of mechanisms. Christianity shifted the prevailing view of the

57

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:54 PM Page 58

Architectural Model as Machine

invisible things, placing past methods of measuring the truth in question. The acceptance of icons as means of measuring the divine reopened the split between theory, requiring education, and practice, requiring craft, a split represented by Plato and Daedalus. Shifts in politics and economics, and a renewed access to classical thinkers such as Aristotle and Vitruvius, once again offered the solution of an educated craftsman, the architect. These conditions must have greatly influenced Alberti’s conclusions as to who should create and interpret through the thinking mechanisms of the maquette-like, architectural scale model (Figure 2.12).

Notes 1. Perez-Gomez, Alberto, informs us that the figure of the preclassical architect is perhaps best represented by Daedalus. See ‘The Myth of Daedalus’, A.A. Files 10, p. 49. The classical Greeks offer an excellent critical foundation for understanding subsequent changes in the architect’s relationship to the scale model. Classical Greek culture, as opposed to earlier cultures, has been extremely influential in the development of the belief systems of the west. Myths, an important part of classical Greek culture, are typically described as traditional stories about supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as explanations of the world. 2. Bulfinch, Thomas, The Age of Fable, (New York, NY: The Heritage Press, 1942), p. 160. 3. For example, Penelope Reed Doob, in her book The Idea of the Labyrinth, notes that it was used as a key model in the design of the Gothic cathedral.a Actual pavement carvings of labyrinths, which can be seen as symbolic of the Christian’s search for faith, were included in the design of many Gothic cathedrals.b Doob writes that, ‘Almost any church labyrinth, then, might be interpreted as signifying the marvelously articulated complexity of the building that contains it.’c Geoffrey Chaucer makes an interesting connection between architecture, literature and the labyrinthian model in his work The House of Fame, which contains a blending of medieval literary, intellectual, metaphysical, visual and popular labyrinth traditions.d Similarly, Vigil’s Aeneid, Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and Dante’s Divine Comedy, all entail a labyrinthian experience by hero, narrator, and reader.e a. Doob, Penelope Reed, The Idea of the Labyrinth, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), p. 160. b. Ibid., p. 5. c. Ibid., p. 123.

58

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:54 PM Page 59

The changing mechanism of the scale model

d. Ibid., p. 309. e. Ibid., p. 307. 4. Perez-Gomez, op. cit., p. 51. 5. Frontisi-Ducroux, Dedale, Francoise, (Paris, France, 1975), p. 90. 6. Perez-Gomez, Alberto, ‘The Myth of Daedalus’, A.A. Files 10, p. 50. 7. The term ‘analogy’ is derived from the Greek analogia, meaning ‘proportionally.’ Originally it was a mathematical term signifying a common or reciprocal relationship between two things or a similarity of two proportions. Angeles, Peter A., Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York, NY: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981), p. 8. 8. Perez-Gomez, op. cit., p. 49. 9. Ibid., p. 51. 10. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 1843. 11. For additional information on this subject see: Frascari, Marco, Monsters of Architecture, (Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, Publishers, Inc., 1991). 12. Perez-Gomez, op. cit., p. 52. 13. Ibid., p. 52. 14. Ibid., p. 52. 15. Grove, Philip H., Webster’s Third International Dictionary, (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1971), p. 599. 16. Onions, C.T., ed., The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, (London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 462. 17. Section 509 to the end of Book VI of The Republic, the famous example of the couch in Book X should also be considered. Plato argues that there is only one form or idea of a couch. The craftsman initiates this idea making the couch of specific material while the painter produces only the optical appearances of the couch from a certain angle and is twice removed. 18. Barasch, Moshe, Theories of Art, from Plato to Winckelmann, (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1985), p. 23. 19. The word ‘allusion’ comes from the Latin aludere, meaning ‘to play with.’ An allusion is not an obvious reference and it may not be understood at all. Onions, op. cit., p. 27. 20. Aristotle, E.S. Forester (translator), Mechanics, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 1298. 21. Ibid., p. 1298. 22. Ibid., p. 1298. 23. Ibid., p. 1298. 24. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, Frank Granger (trans.), De Architectura, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), pp. 359, 361. 25. Ibid., p. 7. 26. The word ‘architect’ comes from the Greek arkitekton, which means ‘master builder.’ The most common meaning of the word 59

ALBE-02.qxd 22/7/04 9:54 PM Page 60

Architectural Model as Machine

27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

39. 40.

60

‘architect’ is one who designs and oversees the construction of large structures, such as buildings, bridges or ships. Vitruvius, op. cit., pp. 7–9. Vitruvius, op. cit., p. 28. The word ‘icon’ comes from the Greek Eikon, which means ‘likeness or image’ and is related to the idea of a sign. Onions, op. cit., p. 459. Angeles, op. cit., p. 119. Barasch, op. cit., p. 53. See Satires (1.8.1). Barasch, op. cit., pp. 54–57. Ibid., pp. 56–57. Ibid., pp. 56–59. St Thomas Aquinas, Encyclopaedia Americana, op. cit., pp. 142–143. Vasari takes a similar position when he writes, ‘When theory and practice are united in one person, the ideal condition of art is attained, because art is enriched and perfected by knowledge, the opinions and writings of learned artists having more weight and more credit than the words or works of those who have nothing more to recommend them beyond what they have made, whether it be done well or badly.’ See section on Alberti in Vasari’s, Lives of the Artists. Alberti, Leon Battista, Joseph Rykwert (translator), On the Art of Building in Ten Books (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988), p. 2. Ibid., p. xiii. Ibid., p. 3.

ALBE-03.qxd 22/7/04 9:56 PM Page 61

C H A P T E R

3

Scale model as machine

3.1 Janus, Roman god of doorways

The architectural scale model can be perceived as a mechanism for thinking, mediating between the confusion of nature and human designs. This chapter (Plate 8) is a mediation and a crossing between the first two and final two chapters. It will not only summarize earlier points but will also introduce complex ideas which will be more completely developed later. In this central position, this study turns to the etymologies of such words as ‘model’ and ‘machine.’ Understanding the derivations of these terms can offer important insight into the use of the scale model and will help develop a general understanding of architectural issues (Figure 3.2). The word ‘model’ is borrowed from Middle French modele, from Italian modello, a model or mold, from the vulgar

3.2 Le Corbusier with architectural model

an

ALBE-03.qxd 22/7/04 9:56 PM Page 62

Architectural Model as Machine

Latin modellus. Modellus is a diminutive of the Latin modulus, a diminutive of modus, which means to measure. A model is typically a small object, usually built to scale, that represents another, often larger, object. It can be a preliminary pattern, serving as a plan, from which an item not yet constructed will be produced. A model can also offer a tentative description of a theory or system that accounts for all its known properties.1 Architectural scale models operate in all of these areas, not only defining a future building but also partakes in the definition of a culture’s cosmos. It is generally accepted that Thales measured the height of the pyramids by the shadow they cast, taking the observation at the hour when the length of a human’s shadow equals his or her height (Figure 3.3). The shadow offered Thales an understandable scale with which to measure the unknown.2

3.3 Thales of Miletus

62

ALBE-03.qxd 22/7/04 9:56 PM Page 63

Scale model as machine

For, when humans develop a measure, they are offered a standard, an acceptable unit of quantitative or qualitative value by which something intangible is determined or regulated. In this sense, measuring is important in the search for understanding. However, if the measurement is not fully defined, the development of the measurement process becomes, itself, an essential part of the process of understanding. Each measurement of an unknown involves comparing it with a carefully conserved known. In the development of measurement several steps, not always apparent, are involved: an unknown is measured by comparing it directly with a known device or with a measuring device or instrument that has been previously developed to agree with reference measurement standards.3 These reference standards are calibrated from time to time by comparing them with a higher-level generally agreed-upon reference standard (Figure 3.4). Measuring devices such as rulers, scales, and various kinds of meters are manufactured in accordance with a reference standard. It is through humanity’s attempts at measuring invisible things that humans produce not only units of measure such as inches, liters and pounds, but also the philosophies and belief systems needed to measure and define the interpretations of the scale model. The scale model offers humans an understandable surface (framework) upon which they can project and develop their measures of invisible things. What individuals see reflected in their measurements is affected by the current concept (reference standard) of what is invisible. This idea will be developed further in later chapters. It can be stated that, ‘Measurement is the process used to answer the questions: How many? How much? Measurement, broadly defined, can be made by the unaided human senses and brain – for example, in estimating distances dimensions, temperatures, and weights. In general, however, man’s capabilities need be both extended and refined by instruments.’4 These instruments for measuring are typically manufactured by machines (Figure 3.5). A machine is generally considered to be something with a practical purpose, a device that substitutes for or extends humankind’s own forces. The word itself has the same etymological root as ‘might.’ The word ‘machine’ comes from the Latin machina and the Greek words mechane, meaning devices or contrivances for doing a thing, and mechos, meaning ‘the means’ or ‘the way by which something is expedited.’5

3.4 Balance and weights

3.5 IBM processing machine

63

ALBE-03.qxd 22/7/04 9:56 PM Page 64

Architectural Model as Machine

3.6 Toy as agent of magic, marvel and fantasy

64

The study will describe several interesting theories encompassing the idea of machines. It will note the view that machines are an interaction of parts, with other parts, within a whole (or system) unintentionally producing purposive activity and/or function. It will also point to the theory that all phenomena can be explained in terms of the principles by which machines (mechanical systems) are explained, without recourse to intelligence as an operating cause or principle.6 These theories present a fairly wide view of what a machine is, and subsequently explain in part why some consider that machines, unlike tools, have an important ability to take on a life of their own. It should be noted that, historically, machines were often regarded as toys or agents of magic, marvel and fantasy (Figure 3.6); for philosophers, they have served as symbols and metaphors.7 Chapter I pointed out that Vitruvius, in the Ten Books of Architecture, devotes the entire last book to the study of machines. It is within this last book that Vitruvius discusses scale models. A machine can be a structural or constructed thing, which is why many architects consider a building a machine. The architectural model is typically seen as a small-scale machine suggesting a representation of a possible future of a larger machine. In other words, the model machine is a scale device that helps humans extend their intellectual might in an attempt to understand and define the measure of a complex whole. The architectural scale model is a mechanism for developing definition, mediating between perceived chaos and human designs. Sitting between lifelessness and the uncanny, the model offers a measurable scale within which to develop narratives, myths, and buildings. It is through the attempt to measure things that are invisible that humanity creates the analogies – the reference standards – which serve as a framework within which to develop the interpretive narrations of our scale model machine. In other words, the measurer’s relationship with the invisible is important for defining the measurement through the scale model machine. For example, the Catholic religion itself is measured through the cathedral. The building demonstrates the story of medieval Catholicism to an illiterate population through sculpture and stained glass windows. Each door and window defines the religion in a simple direct way to the reader. The building becomes a device for thinking about the measurements of the

ALBE-03.qxd 22/7/04 9:56 PM Page 65

Scale model as machine

organization of the church and, thus, is an example of a scale model machine (Plate 9). The cathedral illustrates concepts of the scale model machine. It offers a good example of the idea that the model machine presents an understandable surface (framework) from which to project and define invisible things. It is a scale model, both mediating between the order of the known and the chaos of the unknown. The possibility of measurement imparts a small amount of control to humans. Nevertheless, like a crystal ball, tea leaves left in a cup, or smoke in an alchemist’s tort, users can never be sure how the message of the scale model machine will be interpreted on any given day. This point can be further illustrated with the following discussion concerning the projection of unconscious imagery. This imagery is the reflection of an individual’s unconscious from the surface of his or her scale model machine. Individuals’ relationships with their scale model machines are typically a blend of religious science and scientific religion, combining a scientific pursuit of nature’s secrets with a religious quest aiming at measuring ultimate nature (Figure 3.7). The scale model machine has thus an exoteric or scientific aspect, and an esoteric or mystical aspect. In explaining the development of esoteric or mystical measuring, one encounters

3.7 Nostrodamus making calculations

65

ALBE-03.qxd 22/7/04 9:56 PM Page 66

Architectural Model as Machine

the psychological phenomenon of projection and the universal law that nature abhors a vacuum. It is human nature to look for order within the vacuum of chaos. As the age-long investigation of order plunges humanity into a dark void, the darkness is finally defined by the groping psyche of the measurer who projects thoughts on to the mechanism of the scale model. Thus, through the indirect methods of projection and free association, the measurer comes to activate the unconscious which allies itself to his or her work in the form of hallucinatory or visionary experiences.8 The reference standards of Christianity, for example, looked for a tightly controlled measure defined in a specific way, compatible with church doctrine. A process using a scale model machine that appeared to deal with such unexplainables as alchemy or magic would appear suspect in such a controlled environment. A scale model machine providing a more tightly controlled definition was much more acceptable. The cathedral, though operating as a scale model machine, maintained greater control over its user’s projections than the stick. The church did not necessarily wish the parishioners to jump to too many wrong conclusions. The Catholic religion presented the reader with a relatively tightly controlled narration, since the church had configured a specific solution to the condition of the unknown. It is not surprising that competing reference standards such as myths, legends, witchcraft, and modern science were frowned upon in such an environment. The church did not allow the reader much opportunity for misinterpretation of the measure. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, errors in measurement may result from imperfect operator performance. Measurement, it seems, was historically developed from the corporal or human measurement, for human measurement. For example, during the Renaissance, numerous inconsistencies in the church’s defining measurements were noted. This occurred because the human measurer was allowed a renewed freedom to interpret and define invisible things. This shift in the individual’s ability to interpret and define also has an effect on the manner of the thing defined. The etymology of the word ‘manner’ is related to that of ‘modus.’ Certainly one of the key definitions of the word ‘manner’ is that it is a character that makes an artist’s or architect’s work uniquely his or her own. ‘Manner’ comes from the Latin, ‘of the hand.’ It means kind, sort, nature, or character 66

ALBE-03.qxd 22/7/04 9:56 PM Page 67

Scale model as machine

of a thing. It is a characteristic or customary mode of acting, as in habit, usage, or custom. Manner is the nature or normal behavior of a thing.9 Though the word ‘mode’ is related directly to ‘model’ and ‘measure,’ it is most closely related to the word ‘manner.’ A mode is a prevailing fashion or style of dress or behavior. It can be a musical arrangement or rhythmical scheme; ‘mode’ relates to architecture by setting a mood, a temporary state of mind or feeling.10 When speaking of mode, Kant used the word modalitat, usually translated as modality, which meant the manner as actual, as possible, or as necessary – in which something existed. Locke defined mode as the manner in which an idea is known. Mode to Spinoza was, ‘that which exists in and through, something other than itself.’ The scale model serves as a mode by being a mechanism for measuring or defining manners. The manner of the measure, developed through these models, is human and therefore imprecise. Architects have learned that the imprecision in their scale model machines is necessary because that is a reflection of being human. The word model also relates to the word ‘modest’ through the Latin modus. ‘Modest’ means having a limited and not exaggerated estimate of one’s ability or worth, or lacking in

3.8 Al Smith and the Empire State Building model

67

ALBE-03.qxd 22/7/04 9:56 PM Page 68

Architectural Model as Machine

vanity or conceit, or not bold or self-assertive. It can mean being free from exaggeration or overstatement. Modest can mean reasonable, moderate, or conventional in dress and behavior, or limited in size or amount. Modest also means not in excess. In its archaic form to be modest means to exercise control over or to act as a mediator or to be in the middle. This is quite similar to the word ‘moderate,’ which means characterized by an avoidance of extremes of behavior. The modest measure reflects the mode. The reflection of current thoughts and experiences from the scale model is a measure of modernity. The ‘modern,’ which comes from modus, means something that reflects the manner of today. The measure of architecture has always been related to its manner. Without manner, it becomes impossible to understand what is being measured. This is why, as society changes, so does the definition of manner. The scale model machine extends the architect’s own modest ability to measure the perceived chaos of the unknown. The scale model is our modest mode in which the manner is measured (Figure 3.8). The next two chapters will expand on these concepts.

Notes 1. ‘Model’, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, (Springfield, MA: C.G. Merriam Co., 1967), II, p. 1451. 2. Aristotle describes Thales of Miletus as the founder of European philosophy. For this reason, Thales is important in bridging the worlds of myth and reason. 3. ‘Measure’, Encyclopedia Americana, (Danbury, CT: Encyclopedia Americana, 1982), XVIII, p. 585. 4. ‘Measurement, principles and instruments of’, Encyclopedia Britannica, (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974), XI, p. 728. 5. ‘Machine’, Webster’s Third International Dictionary, op. cit., p. 1353. 6. Angeles, Peter A., Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York, NY: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981), pp. 166–167. 7. Hulten, K.G. Pontus, The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age, (New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 1968), p. 6. 8. Johannes, Fabricius, Alchemy (paraphrased), (Copenhagen, Denmark: Rosenkilde and Bragges, 1976), p. 97. 9. ‘Manner’, Webster’s Third International Dictionary, op. cit., p. 1376. 10. ‘Mode’, Webster’s II, New Riverside University Dictionary, (Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1984), p. 761. 11. Angeles, op. cit., p. 177. 12. ‘Moderate’, Webster’s II, op. cit., p. 761. 68

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 69

C H A P T E R

4

Machine as scale model machine

4.1 Pygmalion and Galatea

In the preceding chapters, this study has pointed to the historically important connection between measuring and the scale model machine. As previously pointed out, each measurement of an unknown involves a comparison with a carefully conserved known. Humans define a measurement of an unknown by comparing it directly with a known device, which has been previously developed to agree with reference measurement standards. These reference standards are calibrated from

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 70

Architectural Model as Machine

4.2 An undergraduate student model built by Sam Bawden

4.3 An undergraduate student model built by Josh Green

time to time by comparing them with a higher level, generally agreed upon, concept of the ideal. In other words, the architectural scale model as maquette can be compared to another already completed building or group of buildings, or it may be compared to the accepted conventions of its society. Sometimes, when compared to a scale model, the accepted conventions are proved to be unsatisfactory and may be changed. The architectural scale model can be an important participant in these changes (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Historically, the architectural scale model was employed as a thinking machine, that is an idea used for the understandable measuring and testing of the prevailing reference standard’s concepts of invisible things. The architect’s intention was to create definition through representations which were developed in accordance with the reference standard’s view of divine will. Such definitions were formulated by using the architectural scale model machine developed to help define future buildings. These buildings referred to the prevailing manners, morals and habits of an already reasonably well-defined set of standards, whose purpose was to explain the divine. Shifts in these reference standards were also reflected in the thinking mechanism of the scale model. Although varying amounts of freedom of interpretation existed historically for architects, the main emphasis remained representing the message of the divine within the prevailing reference standards. Today the architectural scale model remains a significant method of defining invisible things. The search for truth remains a constant part of human nature. However, since the Renaissance, there have been fundamental changes in the relationship between the scale model machine and the prevailing reference standards. This chapter will discuss these changes and how they developed.

I After the fall of the Roman Empire, the representations created through the scale model machine typically operated within a well-defined reference standard. What were perceived to be as the truest definitions of God’s laws were carefully conserved by the educated hierarchy of the Christian church. During the Middle Ages, the scale model machine was developed with the expectation that it would agree with the previous reference standard. However, reference standards, as carefully conserved 70

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 71

Machine as scale model machine

by the church, appeared more and more to require recalibrating in light of changing manners. It was during the period of the Renaissance that a general loosening of the rigid control of the church allowed this recalibration to occur. This change was the most significant development in representation to occur during the Renaissance. Astronomy was one of the areas most crucial to this shift. The prevailing scale model of the universe prior to the Renaissance was developed by the 2nd century Greek Astronomer, Ptolemy (Figure 4.4). This scale model, also accepted by Aristotle, was a geocentric universe with the Earth at the center, around which the sun and planets revolved. The geocentric universe was compatible with existing church doctrine, which held that God created the Earth as the center of the universe. With the support of the church this view prevailed for 14 centuries. Nicholas Copernicus (Figure 4.5) created a scale model machine that threatened to recalibrate the prevailing reference standard that had been carefully conserved by the church. When he published his book On the Revolution of the Heavenly Orbs, he argued that simplicity and symmetry would be better served by putting the sun, not the Earth, at the center of the cosmos. Many serious questions were raised about Copernicus’s ideas and his work threatened to overthrow the scale model machine defined by Ptolemy, Aristotle and the church. The reaction of the church, the conserver of the existing reference standard, was extreme. Those who supported Copernicus’s new scale model were excommunicated from the church. In the early 1600s Bruno (Figure 4.6), Vanini and Fontainier were all burned at the stake as atheists for supporting this new position. Finally, the Italian astronomer Galileo boldly undertook to prove that the Copernican scale model worked. Through his newly developed telescope, Galileo was able to observe the satellites of Jupiter, Saturn’s rings, and the moon’s surface. Galileo vigorously and actively attempted to publish his findings, which supported the Copernican scale model of heliocentricity.1 Though he was summoned before the Inquisition and severely punished, in the end Galileo’s support of the Copernican model forced a rather minor recalibration, but not the destruction, of the existing reference standard as conserved by the church. Though the methods used by Copernicus and Galileo differed from those used by architects of the time, certain

4.4 Ptolemy’s Universe, illustrated

4.5 Portrait of Nicolaus Copernicus

71

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 72

Architectural Model as Machine

similarities existed. For both, there was a commonly accepted reference standard, defined by a specific group, that employed an understandable measure of the invisible. The architectural scale model machine could also be used to support or develop new calibrations of the reference standard through the use of representations. It should be noted that those who control the reference standards are not always enthusiastic about outsiders playing with even minor recalibrations of their carefully controlled order systems. One can start to understand the uproar that Adolf Loos caused with his Steiner House of 1910. The reader can also guess at the outcome if Michelangelo had presented his models to a 12th century building guild.

II 4.6 Statue of Bruno

72

A basic tenet of the humanistic approach was that it regarded the rational individual as having the highest value. This valuing of rationality developed into rationalism: the view that reason rather than sense is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.2 Rationalism contrasts reason with revelation as in religion, or with emotion and feeling as in ethics.3 Mathematics became more and more the scale model machine of choice during this period. Leonardo de Vinci wrote, ‘There is no certainty in science where one of the mathematic sciences cannot be applied.’4 He, however, also told of receiving inspiration from clouds, stains on rocks and his religion, for he did not believe these positions to be incompatible. Still, geometry, physics and calculus all had a major effect on his architectural scale model machine during this period. In Chapter 3, it was discussed that the scale model machine was an important part of defining and calibrating the reference standard. As mathematics became the scale model of choice so also was the reference standard increasingly seen as a mathematical mechanism. For Renaissance thought, the rational next step was to begin to view invisible things as part of a giant mathematical mechanism. However, mathematical methods deal mainly with quantitative and not qualitative phenomena, and the architectural scale model machine deals with both. This situation caused an interesting division in the architectural model machine, since mathematics attempts to measure precisely, and humans are imprecise and require a certain amount of play within their measurements.

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 73

Machine as scale model machine

III René Descartes believed in the superiority of the mathematical scale model as a means for measuring. He wrote, ‘Of all who have sought for the truth in the sciences, it has been the mathematicians alone who have been able to succeed in producing reasons which are evident and certain.’5 He believed that no situation in human life, no problem facing mankind could not be solved by applying the infallible, all-encompassing laws of mathematics. Descartes’ scale model of the universe was called mechanism. In this scale model the whole universe is seen as a giant mechanism moving in a mathematically measurable clockwork system. Within this reference standard all living bodies are seen as machines, forms of automata, mechanically responding to stimulation.6 For Descartes even the human body, the key measure for architecture, could be considered a machine, differing from those of animals only because of a God-given rational soul. According to a story about Descartes, he constructed a mechanical woman, Francine, on mathematical principles. While on a sea voyage, a curious fellow traveler opened his luggage and discovered Francine. When Francine was brought to the captain he ordered her thrown overboard as a product of black magic.7 There is a well-documented history of machine people and machine animals. Daedalus is said to have created statues so lifelike that they had to be chained down to keep them from walking away. Another example is the myth of Pygmalion’s beautiful statue, which was given the breath of life by the goddess Aphrodite. The technology of automata was of great interest to the Arabs, who transmitted the tradition from antiquity to the Middle Ages. These automata were shown as marvels at courts and medieval fairs throughout Europe. The French artists Bracelli and Petitot are known for their engravings of machine trades people during the 16th and 17th centuries. Some of the most important examples of automata were created by Jacques Vaucanson in France and Pierre JacquetDroz in Switzerland. Vaucanson’s famous mechanical duck was presented in 1738 to the Academie Royale des Science, along with a mechanical flute player and drummer. The artificial duck was described as being made of gilded copper and possessing the ability to drink, eat, quack, splash about in the water, and digest food like a living duck.8 In 1770 Jacquet-Droz presented an automatum of a young boy who, it was claimed,

73

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 74

Architectural Model as Machine

4.7 Drawing Automayon by JacquetDroz

could actually write. It was said that when the mechanism was started, the boy dipped his pen in the inkwell, shook it twice, placed his hand at the top of the page, paused and slowly and carefully began to write (Figure 4.7).9 The representation of machines as people exerted a fascination not only as a marvel but also because the automata posed an important question about the differences between humans and machines that appear human. There must have been a certain feeling of sacrilege in the idea that these were humans created by humans and thus without souls.10 The soul has been described as the emotional side of human nature and can even serve to represent the principles of thought and action in human beings.11 The soul is generally defined as the principle of life, feeling, and thought in humans and is regarded as a distinct spiritual entity separate from the body. The soul is a form of spirit. The word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus or breath, literally meaning breath of life, usually given by a deity. When a human receives inspiration it literally means to breathe in the spirit. To be inspired can mean to be guided or controlled by divine influence.12 Therefore, machines, which do not have souls, could be seen as lacking the ability to be inspired (Figure 4.8). For Descartes the division between the concept of a mechanical body and the human mind created a dualism. Dualism assumes that a person’s mind and body are irreducibly different entities. To the rationalists the human body could be precisely measured, while measuring the abstraction of the soul is elusive. The reader should recall the automata statues of Daedalus. These mechanisms were considered so life-like that they were chained down to keep them from walking away. However, though these machines appeared real, there were those who considered his machines to be possible illusions of the truth.

4.8 Automated chess player or robot

IV One important institution influenced by rationalism was the academy. Academies were originally organized not only to educate future artists, architects, and scientists, as well as those in other disciplines, but they also provided a place for their members to exhibit work. Because of the declining financial support of individual patrons, these academy-controlled exhibitions 74

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 75

Machine as scale model machine

developed into the most significant market for creative work. It soon became apparent that the state was the only institution able to support the academies. French academies, founded and supported by the state, were originally developed to educate the public.13 However, with the appointment of Jean Baptiste Colbert (1619–1693) as director, they began to function as an authoritarian arm of the state. Colbert was a statesman and not a member of an academy; he served as the finance minister and first controller general of France. During this period, France was in a deep financial depression that caused political hostility and economic dislocation. As part of his attempt to extend his political authority, and also as a means to parry opposition from intellectuals, Colbert positioned himself as head of a vast network of cultural patronage controlled through the academies. From this position he was able to place a significant number of French intellectuals and artists on the royal payroll. Colbert also adhered to the rationalistic view that creative matters could be universally subjected to reason. This view produced a narrow set of creative rules covering all the fields controlled by the academies. These rules called for art that was generally neoclassical, a style considered politically nonthreatening. Through such methods Colbert, the politician, was able to gain control over creative fields, thus defusing intellectual opposition to the state. An artist who did not create within the rules of the academy found little work (Figure 4.9). Colbert’s successful approach to controlling intellectual opposition led to the development of numerous other academies throughout Europe and in America. These were usually state-controlled and similar in approach to the French academies; by 1790 there were more than 100 such institutions.14 Academies were designed to regulate and govern the message of the model machine for the state, which was the new conserver of the reference standard. When Galileo presented his scale model, the church, a similarly powerful conserver of the reference standard, was eventually forced to reconsider its carefully conserved views. With the rise of Cartesianism, the previously accepted reference standard used to explain invisible things was questioned. The church could not precisely measure its more metaphysically based view of the truth; subsequently it lost its complete control over the reference standard. Through the academy, the state attempted to politically control interpretations of the scale model machine, as the church had 75

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 76

Architectural Model as Machine

4.9 Students in front of the École des Beaux Arts, Paris, France

done earlier. However, the academy offered a rational reference standard with a more scientific view concerning invisible things. The French aristocracy must have begun to question this new direction after the machinery of the guillotine went to work. Although the fall of the aristocracy allowed a different political group to conserve the reference standard, the new scientific view remained. According to this view, advances in science and invention were necessarily good for mankind. In 1756 Voltaire wrote, ‘Reason and industry will progress more and more, that useful arts will be improved, that evils which have afflicted men and prejudices which are not their least scourge, will gradually disappear among all who govern nations.’15 Those who accepted this prevalent rationalistic view believed in progress and were consequently convinced of humankind’s perfectibility. Not all of Voltaire’s contemporaries remained enthusiasts of the new rational reference standards. For example, it was a short 60 years after Voltaire’s statement that Mary Shelly created Frankenstein’s monster. In this story the rational scientist discovers the secrets of life and attempts to create a man. Instead, he produces a hideous monster who destroys all who are close to him. In the end, after a global chase, they both perish. One might interpret this story as describing, through 76

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:58 PM Page 77

Machine as scale model machine

analogy, the failure of science to completely define the measure of man. Between Voltaire and Frankenstein, the world saw the bloody French and American revolutions which produced radical and rationally based social and economic changes. After the French Revolution, hopes for a better life were frustrated by new tyrannies. The Industrial Revolution brought about an extensive mechanization of production systems. Workers were thrown out of work by machines, child labor became the norm, and miserable slums soon surrounded the new factories. New political problems required new political systems, or new calibrations to the reference standard.

V The academies survived this turmoil and served as an arm of the new rationally oriented political groups. Changing the political organization in control of the reference standard typically led to new calibrations, which in turn affected the architectural scale model machine. The political groups that control the policies of the reference standards can be called governments. In one usage, the word ‘government’ applies to the institutions and processes by which groups and states are regulated. In another, a governor is a control device on a machine by which the output of that machine is controlled in accordance with a desired standard. Governors prevent machines from spinning out of control. However, an over-governed machine may become sluggish and run inefficiently (Figure 4.10). There are varying forms of governors or governments in control of reference standards which are important to consider in the study of the scale model machine. One of the earliest forms of government was a state headed by a king or monarch, who was an absolute ruler. Many compromises were reached between the church and this form of government: for example, the concept of the ‘Divine Rights of Kings,’ and St Thomas’ belief that the state and government were manifestations of God’s will. In this case, the reference standards conserved by the hierarchy of the church maintained a great degree of control over kings in the western world. In totalitarian systems, the government serves as an agency of the state in an attempt to regulate all activities of individual citizens. Typically, in such societies, the message of the architectural scale model machine is tightly restricted 77

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 78

Architectural Model as Machine

4.10 Goering with a model of the Berlin airport

by the state and, thus, those with incorrect interpretations of the rules have disappeared in the night. Totalitarian systems, like the Gothic Christian church, are not interested in new calibrations of the reference standards. Under such systems other reference standards such as organized religions, which could compete with the state, are usually dominated or discouraged. In constitutional government systems, there is an attempt to limit the absolute control of governmental authority, usually to protect against totalitarianism and to guarantee individual liberties. Under such systems, modest recalibrations are allowed as long as they adhere to the generally accepted framework of society. Anarchists recommend no form of government. They advocate the abolition of government as the indispensable condition for full liberty. Their tenets hold that there is a basic human instinct for mutual cooperation among individuals, which removes the need for regulation by external rule. Friedrich Engles advocated that both the state and government would ‘wither away’ once the need for private property was removed. Those maintaining an anarchistic position would not trust any governors placed on the scale model machine (Figure 4.11).

VI Authors such as Vasari and Wittkower note that the artistic mind is not always a conformist mind. Some artists have 78

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 79

Machine as scale model machine

4.11 Anarchist militia in Barcelona

always attempted, with varying degrees of success, to recalibrate the prevailing governing reference standard. An example of this situation occurred during the period of Romanticism (late 18th to early 19th century) during which artists and intellectuals attempted to gain additional freedom from the tight controls of the academy. The Romantic Movement was considered anticlassical because it placed an emphasis on imagination and feelings. It stood in opposition to the governing academy’s restrictive, rational rules and reverence for Greek and Roman art. The Romantic Movement asserted that artists and architects are by definition creative individuals who are not easily governed. It can be inferred that these individuals dislike tight governance because the scale model machine can become sluggish and lifeless when the conservers of the reference standard become too restrictive. The term ‘Modernism’ describes the philosophies and practices of modern architecture: a self-conscious and deliberate break with past reference standards and a search for new forms of expression. Modernism has connections with both Romanticism and Cartesianism. Although there was a conservative side to early 20th century Modernism, the avant-garde played an important role in this movement.16 There are several key points to consider about the avant-garde. Although this position has its roots in Romanticism, the Modernist avant-garde 79

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 80

Architectural Model as Machine

was experimental and chiefly interested in directly changing the existing reference standard through scale model machines. The movement explicitly rejected past means of governing the message of the scale model machine. The avant-garde wished to expand the architect’s ability to directly influence the reference standards of society. The Modernist movement, influenced by the avant-garde, continued an expanding interest in the scientific/rational reference standard. This situation created an interesting split in the movement. On one side there was a search for universally applicable scientific laws which could be applied to architecture, resulting in a rational, objective, geometric style. On the other side there was an exaltation of subjectivity, creating a style which was emotionally expressive, subjective, and willful.17 The subjective, expressive and personal side of modern architecture was seen in a variety of architectural projects during the late 19th century. The modern subjectivist position combined with the English arts and crafts movement was the basis for Art Nouveau. Most subjective architects, such as Charles Rennie Mackintosh and Antonio Gaudi, have been interested in a departure from the imitation of past governing reference standards. Although these architects have drawn on past architectural measurements, such as the Gothic and neoclassical, they have shown a new freedom in reinterpreting issues, such as function, comfort and scale. These subjectivists maintain a relationship with past concepts of architecture, but they reject the overly restrictive governing of formula historicism represented by the academy. This has created an interesting combination of past knowledge and beliefs with the new Modernist concepts of the invisible.18 A main goal of the objective position in modern architecture, by contrast, was to measure and define the object with some form of rational precision. An object is anything that is visible or tangible, which can be perceived intellectually or can be measured with some degree of precision. The object is also the end towards which an effort is directed. The objective position is one that belongs to the object of perception or thought and is not affected by personal feelings or prejudice. An objective is the goal of one’s actions. This seemingly would allow an eventual gaining of control over the message of the architectural scale model machine without it being affected by more subjective, imprecise and less controllable forms of measurement. 80

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 81

Machine as scale model machine

In architecture, objectivism can best be seen in public buildings showing a strong sense of function. Railway stations, exhibition halls, factories and other such buildings have typically, but not always, been the work of engineers who were generally more prone to be interested in a scientific approach. The Crystal Palace in London, the Biblioteque Ste. Genevieve and the Eiffel Tower in Paris are early prime examples of this new structural style. Many historians point to the Steiner House in Vienna (1910), by Adolf Loos, and the A.E.G. Turbine Factory (1909), by Peter Behrens, as the beginnings of a rationally based modern architecture. These buildings were of a severely functional nature in agreement with the principles of the De Stijl architects. The architect J.J. Oud wrote about the approach, ‘Subordination of the utilitarian to the idealistic would be detrimental to . . . cultural and general values and would only hamper the striving for style.’19 The Bauhaus also took an objective approach and tried to combine architecture with industrial techniques and modern programmatic needs reflecting a generally optimistic point of view towards machines. Members of the Bauhaus such as Gropius, Breuer, Mies van der Rohe, Moholy-Nagy, Kandinsky, and Klee almost all emigrated to the United States when Hitler’s totalitarian government came to power. The period between the two world wars was known as the ‘Machine Age’. The United States, always fascinated by machinery, led the world in numbers of automobiles, electricity consumed and steel production. Consequently, there was a general feeling of optimism and confidence about the future in the United States. The United States’ infrastructure, politically, physically, and demographically (in relation to that of other societies) was basically untouched by the Second World War. This assisted in technologically placing American society in an overwhelmingly prominent position in the world. In Walt Disney’s 1941 animated masterpiece Fantasia, appears the 2000-year-old story of the sorcerer’s apprentice. When the learned sorcerer momentarily departs, the curious apprentice attempts to conjure up powerful forces he cannot necessarily control. These forces soon spin out of control, nearly drowning the hapless apprentice before the sorcerer returns and set things straight. Humans must have felt a similar loss of control over their machines during and after the Second World War (Figure 4.12).

4.12 Close-up of military tank

81

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 82

Architectural Model as Machine

Certainly the governing machinery of Fascism and Stalinism, resulting in millions of human deaths, could be seen as almost uncontrollable. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a major shock to the world, and it appeared to many that humanity had called up forces which could destroy the world. Even more disturbing was the concept that technology could be seen as evolving uncontrollably on its own, independent of human will. Would a god-like sorcerer return to set things straight? The post-war condition philosophically cast great suspicion on the ability of earlier reference standards to effectively govern the scale model machine. Governments had failed, machines threatened human existence and the much-revered measurements of science had, all too often, gone awry. People in general seem to have lost trust and confidence in their capability to control their machines; to have lost faith in the capacity of reference standards to serve as a reliable governing framework for understandably scaling the model machines.

VII

4.13 Marcel Duchamp playing chess and smoking pipe

82

The following analogous stories explain the current situation of the scale model machine. Such analogies can offer a broader understanding of the subject. The first concerns the work of Marcel Duchamp (Figure 4.13). During the horrors of World War I, refugee artists formed the Dada movement in Zurich. The Dadaist movement was out to shock, adopting the motto of the anarchist thinker Bukunin, ‘Destruction is also creation.’20 The key founder of this movement was Marcel Duchamp, who was well known for his aesthetic study of machines. His irreverence for conventional aesthetic reference standards led him to devise a series of machine-like ‘ready-mades,’ causing a revolution in art. He was interested in destroying past notions about how machines were perceived. In this role, Duchamp served as an artist and an anti-artist, both destroying and constructing. Though much of his work was produced prior to the Second World War, it was not until 1960 that this work emerged from relative obscurity. According to Duchamp, ‘The artist is a “mediumistic being” who does not really know what he is doing or why he is doing it. It is the spectator who through a kind of “inner

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 83

Machine as scale model machine

osmosis”, deciphering and interpreting the works’ inner qualifications, relates them to the external world, and thus completes the creative process.’21 Certainly there are many artists and architects who are uncomfortable being considered only ‘mediumistic’ beings, because their opinion about the spectator is not always respectful. However, as Duchamp reminds us, ‘it is posterity that makes the masterpiece.’22 After producing many of his machines Duchamp found himself spending more and more of his time playing chess. In fact, he became so accomplished at the game that during the 1930s he actually represented his country as a member of the French championship chess team. These two interests of Duchamp were not mutually exclusive; he viewed them as quite similar. Duchamp writes that he found many points of resemblance between his art and chess: ‘In fact, when you play a game of chess it is as if you were sketching something, or as if you were constructing the mechanism by which you would win or lose. The competition part of the business has no importance, but the game itself is very, very plastic, and it is probably that which attracts me.’23 Another example may further explain this point. Jean-Paul Sartre’s conversion to Marxism may be similar to Duchamp’s interest in playing chess. A key criticism of Sartre’s famous existentialist position was that its ethics (a system of morals, customs, or manners) hovered on the edge of nihilism.24 This position created an extreme situation which Sartre seems to have found impossible to maintain. Could Sartre’s lack of a moral reference standard also affect his ability to play with his ideas within a measurable framework? Eventually the mode of the French political situation served as the framework for Sartre’s conversion to Marxism. For Sartre, the definitions of the Communist Party served as his reference standard, whose judgment and evaluation of him was the only one that truly mattered. The horrors of the world wars seem to have deeply shaken both Duchamp’s and Sartre’s faith in the ability of humanity to effectively govern their mechanisms. They were pointing to perceived imprecisions of human measured ideologies which are forms of reference standards. These ideologies served as governors which were seen as overly restricting the creative fields. In reaction, Duchamp and Sartre moved to more extreme, unorthodox and nontraditional modes of thinking which did not necessarily reflect or trust the current manner. 83

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 84

Architectural Model as Machine

4.14 Play/Young boy miniature log cabin

84

building

However, for an architect it can prove difficult to finally test the effectiveness of an architectural scale model machine, without allowing criticism by the current manner. In other words, the proposed building needs to be inhabited to see if it works well in the current environment. This study proposes that scale model machines are similar to playing pieces of an intricate game. The purpose of this game is to discover the truth. Scale model machines are used to see whether the current rules of the game are well defined. However, occasionally a rule might be found lacking and will be changed through the mutual consent of the players. James S. Hans, in Hermeneutics, Play, Deconstruction, points to the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer on interpretation and art. He writes, ‘In short, play is a fundamental example of the process of the work of art for Gadamer because it requires the absorption of the player into the play, a foregoing of an objective or subjective attitude.’25 The scale model machine can be seen as playing between the attitudes and modestly mediating the measures of humans. Hans continues, ‘This [play] requires that the “rules” of the game that the work of art itself establishes – the player begins with his own fore-conceptions, but he must be led by the work itself, must accept the rules of the work itself.’26 Hans believes that, ‘Through the back-andforth movement within the circle of the play, the rules become established [defined], the participant modifies his own projections accordingly, and he comes to understand the work of art precisely through the series of reversals of his own expectations which the correcting of his fore-projections involves.’27 Hans points to the work of Gadamer when he notes that this is not free play, as Derrida recommends, but involves giving oneself over to the rules of the thing which one is experiencing. The player must apply the meaning of the experience to his or her own life (Figure 4.14), but the application is determined by the structuring power of the rules that are involved in the production of the play.28 To play as Gadamer recommends, requires an act of faith in accepting a set of rules to serve as a reference standard.29 According to Kant, faith is the acceptance of regulative principles or ideals that cannot be demonstrated theoretically or empirically but, nevertheless, are needed and used efficiently in scientific, practical, and moral affairs.30 The architect should not accept this act of faith blindly. As Sartre pointed out, it is a self-deception not to admit that one has

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 85

Machine as scale model machine

freedom of choice to act in such matters. For Sartre, it is a lack of self-assurance or self-esteem that prevents one from acting on this choice.31 Since the Renaissance, the architect has gained greater and greater freedom of choice in recalibrating the existing reference standard or defining new ones. The new freedom offers a foregoing of objective or subjective attitudes, for it includes both. This new freedom has also placed new responsibility on the architect which, in turn, requires greater education and knowledge. In this pursuit, past architects could refer to a broad base of knowledge including such areas of thought as aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. These areas are similar to those recommended by Vitruvius for educating the architect, since they offered the basis for generally understanding the habits of the human character. This knowledge was considered necessary to successfully represent the boundaries used to measure, calibrate, and test the rituals of life. Recent revelations that the rules of our games (the reference standards) are humanly created, and therefore imperfect, should not come as a surprise. They always have been. These concerns point to humanity’s current fears that we are losing faith in our ability to control mechanisms. However, if humankind is not to become victim to a technology spinning out of control, architects remain responsible for choosing, regulating and governing their machines (Figure 4.15). These regulations are difficult to develop without a faith that humanity may eventually define the unknown or invisible things. Architects can no longer realistically believe they can escape from their technology. With a faith in ourselves to make more fully educated choices in selecting the best reference standard, technology may allow humankind an escape from our destiny. 4.15 Frank Lloyd Wright

Notes 1. This information concerning Copernicus and Galileo is widely documented, here it serves to explain the concept of paradigm shift. 2. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 2421. 3. Lacey, A.R., A Dictionary of Philosophy, (London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1986), p. 200. The word ‘reason’ comes from the Latin ratio, the relation in degrees between two similar things and reri, meaning to think or reason. The term ‘ratio’ is used in a general philosophic sense to refer to the human ability to 85

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 86

Architectural Model as Machine

4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

86

discriminate, to identify, and to relate things. Ratios are a form of measurement and, as earlier noted, scale model machines are important in defining and developing measurement. Hulten, K.G. Pontus, The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age, (New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 1968), p. 8. Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., p. 8. Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., p. 21. Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., p. 18. Oxford, op. cit., p. 2927. Ibid., p. 633. Smith, Alan H., Encyclopaedia Americana, (Danbury, CT: Encyclopaedia Americana, 1982), vol. 2, p. 217. Ibid., p. 217. Hulten, op. cit., p. 9. The word ‘avant-garde,’ a French military term meaning ‘vanguard,’ has been applied since the 19th century to advanced and experimental movements in architecture and art. During the 20th century the avant-garde produced such artistic movements as Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism and, in philosophy after the Second World War, Existentialism. Smith, op. cit., p. 217. There is an important connection between ‘subject’ and ‘subjectivism.’ One meaning of ‘subject’ is one who is under the authority, control, or rule of another. The subjective approach results in art which reflects an individual’s mind or state of mind. A subjective position exists only within the experiencer’s mind and is incapable or external measurement. ‘Subjective’ can mean having to do with the perceived real nature of something and who or what created that real nature. It is involved with ideas about the seemingly immeasurable human inspiration. Benevolo, Leonard, History of Modern Architecture, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1977). Schulz, Christian Norberg, The New Tradition, Architectural Design (New York, NY: St. Martin Press, AD, 1991), p. 94. Bisare, Michael, ed., Western Art, (New York, NY: Exeter Books, 1979), p. 176.l Tomkins, Calvin, The Bride and the Bachelors, (New York, NY: Viking Press, 1965), pp. 9–10. Tomkins, Calvin, The World of Marcel Duchamp, (New York, NY: Time Life Library, Time Inc.). Nihilism is the belief that all traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that all existence is consequently senseless and

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 87

Machine as scale model machine

25.

26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31.

useless. It is a denial of intrinsic meaning and value in life, reflecting a general disillusionment with the ability of humans to justify one moral value over another. Grove, Philip H., Webster’s Third International Dictionary, (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1971), p. 1528. Hans, James S., Hermeneutics, play and deconstruction Philosophy Today, 24, Winter, (Celina, OH: Messenger Press, 1980), p. 306. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that the word ‘faith comes from the Latin fides which means ‘trust or belief.’ It is the acceptance or a system of beliefs thought to be true. Angeles, op. cit., p. 94. Ibid., p. 23.

87

ALBE-04.qxd 22/7/04 9:59 PM Page 88

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:01 PM Page 89

C H A P T E R

5

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

5.1 Pandora’s box

This chapter will discuss several specific examples of architectural models to illustrate and analyze how our present relationships with the architectural scale model machine have changed (Figure 5.2). It will consider particular small-scale model machines of Antonio Gaudi, Vladimir Tatlin, El Lissitzky, Louis Kahn and, finally, Daniel Libeskind (particularly as described during his tenure at Cranbrook and Milan)

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:01 PM Page 90

Architectural Model as Machine

5.2 Baker test, Bikini Atoll

as a means of discussing the current situation of the model. Gaudi offers an example of an architect who developed his scale model machines within a trusted, well-defined reference standard, used as a means of defining invisible things. Both Vladimir Tatlin and El Lissitzky created their scale model machines within the developing reference standards of the new Marxist state. By contrast, Louis Kahn’s Jewish War Memorial is an example of a scale model machine developed within questioned reference standards, and Daniel Libeskind is an architect attempting to deconstruct all of his reference standards, jeopardizing an understandable relationship with his scale model machine. At this point we might consider the critical position of OuLiPo, or workshop of Potential Literature, a French literary society which includes Italo Calvino, George Perec, Raymond Queneau, as well as others. This group studies the constraints imposed by poetic convention (such as rhyme and meter), as well as other arbitrary rules invented for sheer fun and challenge and finds the possibility of numberless unforeseen and unpredictable effects. An example of this position is offered by Italo Calvino, who writes in Six Memos for the Next Millennium, ‘In order to escape the arbitrary nature of existence, Perec, like his protagonist, is forced to impose rigorous 90

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:01 PM Page 91

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

rules and regulations on himself, even if these rules are, in turn, arbitrary. But, the miracle is that this system of poetics, which might seem artificial and mechanical, produces inexhaustible freedom and wealth of invention . . .’1 Architects today may be forced to impose similar standards upon themselves. Some standards are necessary in order to coherently interpret the message of the scale models and to engage in the search for a definition of invisible things.

Gaudi Antonio Gaudi y Cornet’s (1852–1926) small-scale model machines were developed within a well-established, highly controlled system of analogies, wherein a Catholic God was seen as an explanation of invisible things. Gaudi was a Barcelona architect who many historians believe was not involved with any specific movement; others place him as a member of the Catalan Art Nouveau or Modernist movement. Typically historians, such as Helen Gardner, tell us that Gaudi, ‘. . . strove mightily to create forms utterly divorced from tradition and as close as possible to the randomness of nature.2 One of Gaudi’s most important pieces of architecture is the Sagrada Familia (Church of the Holy Family) at Barcelona, on which he began work in 1884 and continued to work for 42 years until his death (Figure 5.3).3 Cesar Martinell, in his book Gaudi: His Life, His Theories, His Work, insists on recognizing Gaudi as primarily an architect, and he is clearly impatient with those who would see Gaudi as some sort of modern painter, abstract artist, or surrealist.4 Martinell places Gaudi’s architecture within the mainstream of architectural theory of his time. Does Gaudi’s use of architectural scale models also support Martinell’s position? It is well documented that Gaudi relied on his small-scale model machines in his design process. These models were white plaster devices, hanging wire or chain models used to study complex geometric shapes (Figures 5.4 and 5.5). What do Gaudi’s small-scale model machines represent? Dalibor Veseley may offer an answer when he describes the general question of representation during the several centuries leading up to the time of Gaudi. Veseley writes: . . . the belief shared by artists and scientists during the critical period of transition, was that the true order of reality was mathematical and that mathematical forms

5.3 Sagrada Familia (Church of the Holy Family) Barcelona

5.4 An example of Gaudi’s plaster study models

91

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:01 PM Page 92

Architectural Model as Machine

5.5 An example of Gaudi’s study models created by hanging chains

were, therefore, the most adequate representation of the universe. Kepler’s, as well as Newton’s, cosmologies were formulated as models of the universe in an attempt to represent and, through the representation, to participate in the hidden universal order. ‘The Christians know’, says 92

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:01 PM Page 93

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

Kepler in his Harmonices Mundi, ‘that the mathematical principles according to which the corporeal world was to be created as co-eternal with God . . . [held] that reality was mathematical in its nature’.5 This Christian position, according to Kepler, maintains that man is searching for the definition of invisible things. It concedes that religion, technology, science, and art share the belief that mathematical forms are an acceptable and correct method of representing the truth of the main explanation for invisible things (God). Gaudi also believed that mathematical forms are a correct method with which to measure and scale. He states: A tetrahedron, with unlimited faces, is the synthesis of infinite space. The first of these surfaces could symbolize the trinity while the second represents light and the third, movement. The paraboloid is generated by a straight line that slides along two others. If we imagine the three straight lines to be infinite, the first can symbolize the Holy Ghost that is the union between the Father and the Son represented by the other two straight lines. The infinite three form a totality which is one, indivisible and infinite – qualities which coincide with the essence of the Holy Trinity.6 For Gaudi, geometry created a well-defined framework (reference standard) on which to base his understanding of invisible things. Gaudi had a strong relationship with and understanding of Catholicism, and it is impossible to completely separate his religion from his work.7 Catholicism offered Gaudi a welldefined reference standard within which to live his life. In addition to his religion, Gaudi was substantially influenced by the work of Viollet-le-Duc. Martinell explains this position when he writes, ‘Viollet-le-Duc proudly acknowledged his debt to French intellectual tradition and particularly to the rationalism of Descartes. Like Descartes, he was determined to isolate a single generative principle that could explain the world in all its complexity.’8 Gaudi, like Viollet-le-Duc, clearly believed geometry was an important generative principle. Martinell records Gaudi as stating: When speaking of geometric form, we usually think of those that are polyhedral, with flat faces. But there is no 93

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:01 PM Page 94

Architectural Model as Machine

reason to exclude other geometrically generated forms which are more perfect. The polyhedral forms, which have been labeled ‘geometric,’ in a mindless exclusivism, are hardly abundant in nature. Even those which man constructs as a plane (doors, tables, boards) tend, with time, to warp into parabolic forms.9 Gaudi attempted to take his understanding of these geometric forms to a new level of complexity, and drawings must have appeared lacking. He may simply have needed to observe these complex forms three dimensionally, as they actually appear. Gaudi realized that if geometric shapes were studied two dimensionally as in drawings, they would be affected by that form of representation. For this reason, he built plaster and hanging wire scale model machines: they operated as advanced studies in geometric shapes (Figures 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8). It is also possible that Gaudi’s scale model machines were engineering studies used to explain his complicated ideas to others. Since Gaudi was raised in a craftsman’s tradition and was a master engineer, he had an extensive understanding of materials. Therefore, it would seem highly unlikely that he would have been seduced into the trap of believing that his small-scale model machines were a reliable means of directly identifying a material’s strength. Gaudi, well versed in natural forms, most likely used these model machines to explore the possibilities of nature’s engineering and not as a direct method of testing material strengths. Gaudi both believed deeply in and trusted his reference standards. Cesar Martinell, a close acquaintance of Gaudi’s, states, ‘I heard him say various times, basing himself on Saint Augustine and Saint John, that beauty is the radiance of truth, or, in other words, without truth there can be no beauty.’10 Juan-Eduardo Cirlot writes, ‘Gaudi’s work can be considered an advance on traditional architecture in the direction of new architectonic structures based on mechanics and his experiments with catenary curves;’ Cirlot concludes, ‘We can only say that Gaudi’s aesthetic ideology coincided with Schoenberg’s belief that one should copy a scientific principle to its utmost conclusions, especially when the scientific principle appears to be the profane version of a higher truth beyond our understanding.’11 Gaudi believed that beauty emanates from truth and it appears that he searched for that truth through his architectural forms. For Gaudi, the truth about invisible 94

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:01 PM Page 95

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

5.6 A Gaudi study model of hanging ropes and weights

things was well defined within the reference standards of the Catholic Church. It seems that Gaudi employed his smallscale model machines not only to design buildings, but also to develop definitions of the truth and perfection of God’s beautiful natural forms. It is possible, then, that Gaudi believed his small-scale model machines contained almost metaphysical significance, quite similar to religious icons. For him, they operated within a trusted definition of invisible things as set by 95

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 96

Architectural Model as Machine

5.7 The model workshop located in Sagrada Familia

the church. This well-defined reference standard allowed Gaudi the freedom to focus his projections on an already welldeveloped system of scale. Leonardo Benevolo writes, ‘Gaudi is a figure of the greatest importance, but his experiment remains isolated in a hostile or indifferent atmosphere and did not have an influence proportionate to its importance on architecture in Spain 96

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 97

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

5.8 The model workshop located in Sagrada Familia

or anywhere else.’12 This lack of influence resulted from the fact that a major change in architectural and technological thinking was unfolding. Society was becoming increasingly convinced of its own ability to control technology and the environment. This belief had a major impact on society’s relationship with its explanations of the invisible, and influenced how its small-scale model machines were seen. Constructivism, 97

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 98

Architectural Model as Machine

concerned with formal organization of planes and expression of volumes in terms of modern industrial materials such as glass and plastic, was a part of the shift.13

Tatlin Vladimir Tatlin’s (1885–1953) small-scale model machine of the Monument of the Third International, was one of the centerpieces of the constructivist movement (Figure 5.9). The monument operated as a small-scale model machine employed in developing a new reference standard. The reference standard

5.9 Tatlin’s model of the Monument to the Third International

98

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 99

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

was communism, a system in which analogies to God as an explanation for invisible things were unacceptable. This new system required that new analogies be formulated or old acceptable ones reworked. In this development Tatlin’s smallscale model machine played a central role. Benevolo writes, World War I reshaped the political map of Europe and left all the participants with major problems of social and environmental reconstruction. In Russia, the October revolution had opened up enormous new possibilities, which found expression in the projects of the constructivists. But, for the most part, the projects remained on paper. Soviet constructivists designed for anything and everything that might have bearing on the construction of a communist society, from worker’s clothing, and agitprop posters to Tatlin’s Tower.14 The constructivists were constructing the definition of a communist society, the new reference standard. Tatlin designed and built as a maquette in the intensely creative aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution, his projected gargantuan, 1500-foot high tower. It was the only building that the famous Russian Cubo-Futurist artist was ever to project.15 Trained as an artist, he had little engineering background; his small-scale model machine was not considered a serious engineering study. It was an attempt at defining the theoretical position of communism. As an artist/architect during this period, Tatlin would have been presented with two important issues. The first was that the avant-garde movements before the First World War were individualist and aristocratic in character, while Soviet society was collectivist and popular.16 The second concerned the conflict between the technical and ideological aspects of architecture.17 These issues and conflicts arose due to the developing nature of Marxist doctrine. The resulting lack of definition in the new trusted reference standard also led to less strict governance of the interpretation of the small-scale model machine. Benevolo writes, ‘Even in the main current of the Russian avant-garde constructivism, there was an insoluble antagonism between technical matters and ideology. The work of architecture should respond fully to material utility and at the same time should express the new political ideas in emotional 99

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 100

Architectural Model as Machine

terms: the concrete results were heavily contrived, spectacular designs, like Tatlin’s famous plan for the monument to the Third International of 1919.’18 Tatlin’s Tower can be seen as an attempt to reconcile the objective material aspect and the subjective, emotional aspect of his new reference standard. Tatlin designed his small-scale machine model tower during an exciting, but chaotic and dangerous, period of massive social upheaval. Artistically and politically he must have been in a tenuous position while building this very visible tower small-scale model machine. In the first place, his previous artistic work would have been considered individualist and, therefore, unacceptable in the new order of the day. As a believer in the reference standards of communism, he would have felt compelled to work artistically within this system. Second, this was Tatlin’s first attempt at producing architecture, a complex field. In a 1920 pamphlet, Nikolai Punins wrote: The main idea of the monument . . . was to comprise a new type of monumental construction, combining a purely creative form with a utilitarian form. In agreement with this principle, the monument consists of three great rooms in glass, erected with the help of a complicated system of vertical pillars and spirals. These rooms are placed on top of each other, and have different, harmonically corresponding forms. They are to be able to move at different speeds by means of a special mechanism. The lower storey, which is cubic in form, rotates around its own axis at a rate of one revolution per year. This is intended for legislative assemblies. The next storey, which is pyramidal, rotates around its axis at a rate of one revolution per month. Here the executive bodies are to meet (the Internationals’ executive committee – the secretariat, and other administrative executive bodies). Finally the uppermost cylinder which rotates one revolution per day, is reserved for centers of an informative character: an information office, a newspaper, the issuing of proclamations, pamphlets and manifestos – in short, all means for informing the international proletariat.19 There are four main points which will further explain the importance of Tatlin’s small-scale model machine. First, Tatlin’s tower acts as a blank screen for focusing and measuring the collective will of the soviet people. It also serves as 100

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 101

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

a social alembic for distilling this will and projecting it back to the masses. The double spiral has been likened by John Milner to the caduceus, symbol of Mercury, the messenger of the gods.20 As conceived, the tower has a strong resemblance to a radio tower, and indeed Tatlin planned to have a radio and telegraph station included in the structure. Actual projectors would have flashed news on to blank screens located throughout the structure. It was hoped that these projections would have engaged and reflected the will of the masses in the interpretation and definition of the new communist reference standard. Second, the tower as a small-scale model machine has been strongly associated with astrology and alchemy, both of which maintain a tradition of mental projection. El Lissitzky’s photomontage of Tatlin working on the Monument to the Third International (Figure 5.10), can be likened to a famous alchemical illustration in which the alchemist is in the same position as Tatlin (Figure 5.11). There is one important difference between these two illustrations: The cross of the church lies at the feet of the alchemist, while Tatlin holds the utilitarian lever. No longer was the reference standard to be set by the church, but a new one was to be defined through the mechanism of the developing communist state. The tower is also strongly related to the human body. Milner writes, ‘Tatlin’s Tower small-scale model machine, seen as an image of collective man, relates to the anatomy of the social body.’21 He also writes: Tatlin’s Tower, even if it does contain figurative elements, cannot be described as specific, yet there is more than a metaphorical resemblance, for Tatlin’s Tower employs a spine, legs, rib cage and vital organs that move . . . a hyper-human, the human form of the collective identity. It is more than a symbolic object. Tatlin’s Tower provides an image of the social macrocosm.22 Tatlin, through his tower, may have attempted to represent the concept of the universal human in a nonfigurative way (Figure 5.12). Finally, Tatlin’s small-scale model machine operates as a lever. In this manifestation Tatlin’s Tower can be likened to the axis mundi, which was created by thrusting a staff into the earth and thus creating a fixed point; the central axis for all future orientation. ‘The discovery or projection of a fixed point – the center – is equivalent to the creation of the world.

5.10 Tatlin’s Tower photomontage by El Lissitzky

5.11 Alchemist engraving ‘Emblema’

101

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 102

Architectural Model as Machine

The work of the gods, the universe is repeated and imitated by men on their own scale.’23 This is why Tatlin tilted his tower; because he wished it not to be considered purely as an axis mundi, but more as that most utilitarian of machines, the lever. It was the goal of the Third International to move the world into the reference standard defined by Marxism. Tatlin’s tower small-scale model machine served much as the lever and center from which the world could be moved. It is described in legend that Archimedes told King Hieron: ‘Give me a point of support (fulcrum) and I shall move the world.’24 Tatlin, the Marxist, would have agreed. Tatlin’s tower is meant to be a lever to move the world. The fulcrum is the scale model, and universal man as reference standard created by the will of the people, not God, moves the lever. 5.12 Tatlin’s Tower construction

under

Lissitzky El (Elaazar Markovich) Lissitzky (1890–1941), was an early proponent of constructivist ideas in Germany in 1920. He was born in Russia at Pochinok near Smolensk, and after a long residence in Germany (where he studied architecture) and Switzerland, he returned to Russia to practice. At the Dusseldorf Congress of Progressive Artists in 1922 he met artistic revolutionaries from all over Europe. He worked with Mies van der Rohe in Berlin and with van Doesburg in Paris, and showed his ‘Proun’ exhibition throughout Europe. Enriched by these encounters, Lissitzky returned in 1928 to Moscow, in order to advance a ‘reconstruction.’25 Lissitzky, unlike Tatlin, was trained as an architect. This training allowed him to attempt a wide range of projects during the constructivist period. Urban planning, architecture, furniture design, exhibition installations, typography, and theater and stage design were all areas of his activity that matched the political, social, and cultural upheavals of the first Five Year Plan. On his return to Moscow, he began to enter architectural competitions, submitting proposals for the Pravda Headquarters, with editorial offices and printing plant, and for the House of Industry; these projects symbolized the political and economic goals of the first Five Year Plan.26 Lissitzky built many architectural small-scale model machines while developing his work. Examples would be his models for the Meyerhold Theater Design and for the House of Heavy Industry.27 Other of his models were less conventional.

102

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 103

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

These small-scale models were known as Prouns: ‘Proun’ is an acronym for ‘Project for the Affirmation of the New,’ a bisyllabic word properly pronounced ‘pro-oon.’28 These smallscale models (Figure 5.13) were built to offer Lissitzky the opportunity to become acquainted with the fundamental methods and systems of architecture and to play with architectural ideas.29 Prouns were composed of several geometrical elements, both two- and three-dimensional, dispersed in a manner that created unexpected spatial relationships. Their components were arranged with little regard to gravity, which had apparently been overcome in the Proun world. Interconnecting forms distorted the regularity of shapes, creating a feeling of movement. Different shapes, scales, and textures enhanced these dynamic tensions.30 Many Prouns were built to study three-dimensional elements, while others were painted entirely with flat planes. Some Prouns introduced metal, cardboard, and paper as college elements, while others use oil paints and watercolors. Prouns deployed a space that tended to reach out in front of the picture plane, as opposed to the infinity behind it. They were generally relief compositions which had their visual structure built up on a ground, visually anchored to the picture plane by one or more large, flat, geometrical forms. Their variety reflected the open-ended nature of their creator’s search for images. Lissitzky, through his Prouns, rejected the representationalism of traditional art and affirmed the utopian hopes for a continuing revolution in our understanding of material, space, and creative activity.31 To comprehend the Prouns it is necessary to understand Lissitzky’s relationship with his reference standard: Marxist–Leninist communism. This relationship is outlined in Lissitzky’s architectural manifesto of 1929:

5.13 Proun #10 by E. L. Lissitzki

It has become clear to our architect that through his work he is playing an active part in building the new world. To use an artist’s work has no value per se, no purpose of its own, no beauty of its own; it receives all this solely from its relation to the community. In the creation of every great work the architect’s part is visible and the community’s part latent. The artist, the creator, invents nothing that falls into his lap from the sky. Therefore, we understand by ‘reconstruction’ the overcoming of the unclear, the ‘mysterious’ and chaotic. 103

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 104

Architectural Model as Machine

In our architecture, as in our whole life, we are striving to create a social order, that is to say, to raise the instinctual into consciousness. The ideological superstructure (the reference standard model) protects and guarantees the work. As the substructure for the renewal that we must carry out in architecture, we named at the beginning the social economic reconstruction.32 Lissitzky not only planned to help develop the new social order, he also wished to destroy the traditional. He believed that material production was paralyzed throughout the country, and that there was a longing for a super-production. His dream was an ideology comprising two demands fundamental to further development: element and invention. A work that was to be in keeping with the age had to contain within it an invention. The age demanded creations arising out of elemental forms (geometry). War had been declared on the aesthetic of chaos, and subsequently an order that had entered fully into consciousness was called for.33 Lissitzky called for a start of social rebuilding, beginning with industry and production. He realized that concrete problems demanded solutions, but the new generation had grown up in a period without architecture, had inadequate practical experience and little authority, and had not yet become an academy. In the struggle for building contracts, Marxist ideology had turned to the basic utilitarian and the purely functional. The slogan was: ‘Constructivism, Functionalism.’ The architect and engineer were seen as equivalent.34 The first reconstruction period of the new social order demanded a concentration of forces from the sphere of the socio-economic revolution to bring about a deepening of the cultural revolution. In the total complex of a culture, physical, psychological, and emotional factors were inseparable.35 Lissitzky states, Art is acknowledged in its capacity to order, organize, and activate consciousness by charging it with emotional energy. Architecture is considered the leading art and the attention of the public is directed towards it. Architectural questions become mass questions. The studio dreams of the beginning lose their individual character and receive a solid social foundation. Once again the ‘utilitarians’ are 104

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 105

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

opposed by the ‘Formalists’. The latter assert that architecture is not covered by the concept of ‘engineering’. To solve the utilitarian task, to construct a volume that functions correctly for the purpose, is only part of the problem. The second part is to organize the materials correctly, to solve the constructive problem. A work of architecture comes into being only when the whole thing springs to life as a spatial idea, as a form that exercises a definite effect on our psyche. To do this it is not enough to be a modern man; it is necessary for the architect to possess a complete mastery of the expressive means of architecture.36 There are two basic points to consider about Lissitzky during this time, and they help clarify the significance of his Prouns. First, he was a believer in the principles of the communist reference standard. These principles, still in the process of being defined, placed great importance on the defining qualities of small-scale model machines. Second, because of his belief in the new reference standard, Lissitzky wished to deny that architecture was merely an emotional, individual affair carried on in romantic isolation. He believed in a conscious and purposeful creation of an architecture that would exercise a closed artistic effect on an objective, scientific basis that had been worked out in advance through architectural small-scale model machines. These architectural small-scale model machines were needed in an active attempt to raise the general standard of living. These scale models were used, in Lissitzky’s words, ‘to melt down the old iron and anneal the new steel.’37 He believed that the mission of the Prouns was to reveal to humankind ‘a complete world system.’38 A key to understanding how Lissitzky saw the Prouns can be found in his statement, The artist is turning from an imitator into a constructor of the new world of objects . . . This is produced by the machine model Proun, which is the creation of form (control of space) by means of the economic construction of trans-valued material . . . The resulting image is not a painting but a structure around which we must circle, looking at it from all sides, peering down from above, investigating from below . . . We screw ourselves into the space . . . Proun does not serve any particular goal, as it has the power to create such goals (and, indeed, the 105

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 106

Architectural Model as Machine

power to create new materials by creating the new forms which demand them). It transcends both the engineer and the traditional artist, somehow superseding the individual producer of architecture through the introduction of the principle of collective creativity.39 Late in the 1920s, Lissitzky shifted away from using the Proun. Lissitzky’s Prouns were not obviously a failure; they were well received, but it was this very popularity that may have caused him concern that the Prouns would be misunderstood and mindlessly imitated. It also could be that Lissitzky realized that a smooth transition from the imaginary space of the Prouns to the real space of architecture was very difficult. They acted as experiments for the applicability of the visual devices to the real world. Prouns were experiments in the translation of the freedom of Lissitzky’s small-scale model machines into the constraints of real architectural volumes. Through Prouns, Lissitzky hoped to further define the developing reference standards, which could spawn future variations, refinements, and adaptations. This hope found expression in his repeated concentration on initial experiences, the opening sequence and the first impression. The Prouns were to be small-scale model machines for these future transformations. Eventually Tatlin’s, Lissitzky’s and other constructivist architectural projects developed into an ideological threat to the leadership of Soviet Russia. Liberal or radical politics, at least to this leadership, did not necessarily support liberal or radical architecture. This seems a likely reason that the Constructivist movement of the 1920s was short-lived. It was supplanted by Stalin’s quasiclassical structures which he imagined might bring culture to the masses, or at least prove acceptable to the proletariat. Architecture during this time tended to consist of less sophisticated imitations of the architecture of the former capitalist masters. Tatlin and Lissitzky both worked under the new and developing reference standard of communism. Their developing reference standard was well trusted and both men were compelled to work within the developing Marxist system. Eventually, Stalin took control of the reference standard, tightly controlling its definition. This reference standard, in turn, strictly controlled the message from the small-scale model machine. Architects who dared interpret and define the 106

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 107

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

message of the scale model machine incorrectly soon found themselves in Siberia. During the constructivist period of unrest, few full-scale buildings were constructed. However, this lack of building allowed a new emphasis on the theory needed to develop a ‘politically correct’ architecture suitable for the masses. Without a fully developed theoretical premise the small-scale model machine gained new importance, but the message it projected was not always controllable. Although the constructivists believed that they could politically define through the scale model machine, conflicts arose. These conflicts included the question of whether the individual artist or society controlled the message mechanism of the small-scale model. The scale model machine also underlined the conflict between technical matters and ideology. These were interesting problems for a society that put such faith in machinery. During the constructivist period, the scale model machine was seen as a means of constructing a new society, not as a means of imitating nature which is God’s handiwork. Social man controlled the world, not God. Can it be inferred that the removal of reference standards defining God as an explanation for invisible things led to the prevalence of alchemical symbols used as a replacement? Whatever the answer, it is clear that the constructivist scale model was a machine needed to destroy the old capitalist system while constructing a new Marxist society. Specifically, Tatlin’s Tower and Lissitzky’s Prouns were seen by the constructivists as scale model machines needed to develop the new architecture required for this developing Marxist society. New architectural reference standards were required in this search. The architectural small-scale model machine served to project political propaganda to the masses. Unfortunately, the projections from the mechanism of these scale models were not always in line with the developing political agenda. This may be why Stalin attempted to destroy the constructivist scale model machine and replace it with a more politically controllable one. Gaudi, Tatlin, and Lissitzky were all able to develop their scale model machines using trusted reference standards. God served as the concept explaining invisible things behind Gaudi’s reference standard; notions of the collective good, the nobility of the proletariat, and freedom from economic 107

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 108

Architectural Model as Machine

oppression, as well as alchemy, were behind Tatlin’s and Lissitzky’s reference standard. These analogies offered a very important sense of measure and scale between man, technology, and the chaos of the unknown.

Kahn

5.14 Model of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs

108

The American architect, Louis Kahn, may have found the concepts behind his reference standards to be questionable. This situation could be quite frightening, and could be likened to the Greek myth of Pandora. ‘Pandora (all gifted), first woman, endowed with gifts by every god, yet entrusted with a box she was cautioned not to open; but, curious, she opened it, and out flew all the ills of humanity, leaving behind only hope, which remained.’40 Are today’s architects becoming like Pandora, wondering if they are unleashing forces that cannot necessarily be controlled? Nuclear weapons, political machinery, and the rampant destruction of the environment all point to an actual danger. The scale model machine has historically been seen by architects as potentially providing the ability to see the light of understanding, but what happens when the undefined and uncanny shadows of chaos appear instead? Is our current situation destroying our trust in the important framework of the reference standards? Louis I. Kahn (1901–1974) provides an example of an architect designing within this condition. In 1966, the New York City Committee of Art commissioned Kahn to design a memorial to commemorate the six million Jewish martyrs of the Second World War (Figure 5.14). Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan was selected as a site. Kahn wrote about this project, ‘Before the architect was chosen the Committee of Art decided that the artists of the memorial should express its meaning without pictorial representation.’41 Kahn’s primary concept was that the monument should have a nonaccusing character, and he considered glass because it is at the same time capable of both leaving a shadow and being filled with light. He did not want to use marble or stone with their defined shadow since the stone could be accusing, whereas, he thought, glass could not. However, Kahn found through his small-scale model machine that the glass of the monument could actually be extremely accusing. Did the small plexiglass scale model machine Kahn created to study the design, raise questions that he could not

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 109

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

or did not wish to answer? Did the small-scale model machine upset Kahn’s perceived sense of order and open the lid to something deeper and darker within himself and humanity? Kahn writes, Architecture is the manifestation in form of the order of our experience. It is the model of our consciousness. . . . The architecture of each culture is a model of that culture’s world, not of the world’s shape, but of its underlying form. . . . We find in architecture a model of underlying principles that govern the world, the forces that give it shape and the space and time for its action. It is in this light that we can see, for example, a Gothic Cathedral as a great scale model of the Medieval universe.42 Kahn believed that the prevailing concept of order, or reference standards, of the times are represented in the architectural scale model machine. The question for Kahn is, what sort of order does his scale model machine represent? The scale model machine is an important part of the design process. Kahn believed this process, according to his book by the same name, travels between silence and light. Kahn defines silence as ‘the unmeasurable, desire to be, desire to express, the source of new need.’43 He defines light as ‘the measurable, giver of all presence, by will, by law, the measure of things already made, light is really the source of all being.’44 Kahn, being a highly religious man, could have only concluded like many others that perfect white light is God’s light, showing God’s order. In the Jewish martyrs’ memorial, Louis Kahn creates a scale model machine to view what the future building might look like in such light (Figure 5.15). The early floor plans of Kahn’s design provide many similarities to the Temple of Jerusalem, two Jewish sanctuaries built successively at the top of Mt Zion. Chapter 1 pointed out that the word ‘temple’ comes from the word ‘templum,’ which in its original Latin meaning defines a measured sacred space, either on earth or in heaven. In this project, the template Kahn referred to for guidance and as a pattern, appears to be his faith as represented by the Temple of Jerusalem. The temple supplied Kahn with an important reference for the design of his measuring mechanism of the scale model. However, while building this martyrs’ memorial Kahn made the following statement: ‘What is the shadow of white light? – black . . . but don’t be afraid, because white light does not exist!’45 Could

5.15 Model of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs

109

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 110

Architectural Model as Machine

Kahn be questioning his own religious faith? Kahn who stated ‘I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world,’46 must have wondered about the six million Jewish martyrs of the Second World War. Kahn’s evident uncertainty is reflected when he writes, ‘I tried to find what order is. I was excited about it, and I wrote many, many words of what order is. Every time I wrote something, I felt it wasn’t quite enough . . . And then I stopped by not saying what it is, just saying, “order is”.’47 Kahn was unsure about adding more. This inability to develop his definition of order through his scale model machine has a direct connection with his lack of trust in his reference standards. An understandable framework of rules is difficult to maintain without faith in reference standards. Kahn appears to have lost his trust in the limits of reference standards, especially those necessary to contain his innermost fears. For him the unrestrained (ungoverned) scale model machine was beginning to spin out of control. The theories of Karl Jung were another important influence on Louis Kahn. Kahn’s wife introduced him to Jung’s work, and this work offers some insight into Kahn’s relationship with his scale model machines and the uncertainty they aroused in him. When Jung chose the word ‘shadow’ to describe aspects of the unconscious, he had more in mind than merely suggesting something dark and unique in outline. Jung believed that there is no shadow without the sun, and no shadow (in the sense of the personal unconscious) without the light of consciousness. In his writings he insists that it is the nature of things that there should be light and dark, sun and shade. Jung points out that the shadow is unavoidable, and that humankind is incomplete without it: ‘Myth held that the man without a shadow (using the word in its ordinary sense) was the devil himself.’48 Jung conceived that the Christian religion as myth was part of an historic process necessary for the development of consciousness. He also believed that the heretical movements, starting with gnosticism and ending in alchemy, were manifestations of unconscious archetypal elements not adequately expressed in the various forms of Christianity. Jung studied the psychotherapy of the middle-aged and elderly, especially those who felt their lives had lost meaning. Many of these patients had lost their religious belief, and Jung discovered that if they 110

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 111

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

could develop their own myths as expressed in dream and imagination they would become more complete personalities. Myth is the infancy of narrative, and inhabits more advanced ways of knowing as our own infancies inhabit us. Speaking of the illud tempus, or the sacred time of the beginnings, before history and profane time, it offers even to many people today a release from the tensions and alienations of abstraction, healing the self-divorced from the raw material of life and providing a tonic affirmation of the wholeness of existence. Karl Kerenyi says that myth ‘provides a foundation’ by enabling the teller of an oral narrative to ‘find his way back to primordial times’.49 However, as Kahn discovered, the scale model machine presents not only the possibility of seeing and defining the narrative of the myth, but also of seeing its failings. Specifically, the scale model machine seemed to allude to the failure of Kahn’s reference standards of scientific and religious beliefs, and to become therefore less controllable and more destructive. Thus, in the final version of the Jewish martyrs’ memorial, Kahn brings a new and important element into his scale model machine (Figure 5.16). The caption next to his drawing states, ‘Though Kahn never liked to use steel as building material, during this design development phase, for economic reasons, he used steel frames holding the glass panels for the construction of piers.’50 It is unlikely that Kahn placed his frame around the model for merely economic or structural reasons. Rather, the potential for chaos that the glass represented required the understandable defined scale of the steel frame. The frame represented to Kahn the possibility of redeveloping his reference standards. Without referring to an understandable frame of trusted analogies, Kahn could not develop the necessary standards to deal with the darkness of chaos. The model machine extends humanity’s modest ability to measure the perceived chaos of the unknown. However, as Louis Kahn’s example reveals, without the perceived proportions offered by a trusted analogy to mediate, humans may find only a frightening loss of control over their understanding of the world. Is humankind opening Pandora’s box by allowing the destruction of their old analogies without a suitable replacement? Renaissance and Russian constructivist

5.16 Sketch of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs

111

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 112

Architectural Model as Machine

architects were able to develop their scale model machines using trusted, though undeveloped, reference standards. The church’s extensively developed definition of God and the emerging philosophy of humanism were the reference standards behind Italian Renaissance architecture, just as the notion of socialistic man was behind the constructivists’ architecture. These analogies offered a very important sense of measure and scale between humankind, human technology and the chaos of the unknown. Are current architects finding their past reference standards to be questionable? Is the present situation destroying the important framework of the reference standards? Daniel Libeskind offers an example of an architect who has not only opened Pandora’s box but has taken an axe to it.

Libeskind Time has permitted an analysis of the architectural work of such architects as Brunelleschi, Alberti, Tatlin, and even Kahn, against the framework of history. For example, historians can study Russian constructivism in relation to its political aim (i.e. the success or failure of Marxism), the function of its buildings and its effects on subsequent architectural movements. By comparison, the contemporaneity of Daniel Libeskind, who was born in 1946 and has actually built very little, makes it difficult to analyze the effects of his small-scale copy machines model on the completed building. However, by considering his work in light of the relationship of past architectural scale model machines to their reference standards, it may be possible to ask important questions about what Libeskind is attempting. There are two significant specific periods of Libeskind’s work. The first period is documented in the exhibition and catalog of Libeskind’s drawings and collages, organized at the Architectural Association in London in 1980. The second period includes an exhibition of three machines, published in conjunction with the exhibition of Libeskind’s work organized by the Centre d’Art Contemporain, Geneva, at the I.L.O. (International Labour Organization) 18 April–22 May 1988. In describing Libeskind’s work, the architect Juhani Pallasmaa writes, ‘Libeskind’s drawing is executed with meticulous perfection, I knew immediately that these architectonic visions interpreted a new multidimensional space–time experience. The complex intertwining of several simultaneous 112

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 113

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

projections, constant shifting of scale experience, and the endlessness of space launched an instant train of association.’51 Pallasmaa also associates Libeskind’s drawings with Lissitzky’s Prouns, both worked with abstractions on the margins of architecture. Still, it can be argued that this association between the two is fundamentally incorrect considering the relationship, or lack thereof, between Libeskind’s scale model machine and a trusted reference standard. However, Pallasmaa does make another interesting association which may be correct when he states, ‘Instead of being balanced, finite compositions of volumes in voids, I experienced the images as architectural narratives without beginning or end, and as passionate explorations in tectonic space, reminiscent of Piranesi’s forceful “carceri d’invenzione” visions.’52 Could Libeskind be questioning the ability of reference standards to set the rules of his play. Dalibor Veseley describes Libeskind’s drawings as (Figures 5.17 and 5.18), ‘situated very far beyond the reality of cubism, constructivism or collage, close to the horizon where most of the non-figurative movements of this century fought their last battle and where our imagination is permanently challenged by the inner possibilities of abstraction . . .’53 John Hejduk writes of the drawings, There is an explosion . . . into space . . . soundless. The debris is floating in a universe devoid of an ending; but with a difference. Each particle; each element; each sign; each figure; each shape; each plan; each thought is still intact . . . precise . . . there is no exit; no escape; from the

5.17 Drawing, Vertical II, by Daniel Libeskind

113

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 114

Architectural Model as Machine

time . . . the time it takes to penetrate. Our minds are shattered by the involvement. There is no protection for our eyes . . . we are simply drawn into . . . to a mysterious; a phenomenological; . . . a profound new vision . . . we are witness to the occurrence of an architectural birth.54

5.18 Drawing, Horizontal 4, by Daniel Libeskind

114

Is it possible to visualize Libeskind’s drawings not as an architectural birth, but as the birth of an individual architect? These drawings are not unlike the clouds or the stains on rocks from which Leonardo received his inspiration. However, in this case, the controlling framework of the reference standard present in previous periods is absent. No longer can the scale model machine be seen specifically as a model intending this or that. Not knowing the intention of the mechanism of the scale model makes it difficult to criticize in relationship to that purpose. Thus these drawings should be considered an attempt by a specific architect to rediscover his reference standards in what seems a safe medium. Libeskind’s drawings raise an important connection between ultimate freedom from all limitations and the chaos of total confusion or disorder. The architect’s initial encounter with chaos is characterized by feelings of frustration, bewilderment, disassociation, and disintegration. In alchemy, this encounter with chaos is shown as an exploding laboratory experiment with confused scientists giving the outer manifestations of chaos. When the architect is exposed to chaos there is a stirring up of the unconscious psyche, which produces fantasies, hallucinations, and visions. However, for all its horror and confusion, the experience of chaos is seen by architects like Libeskind as a positive experience, since it allows relationships to be seen in new and unusual ways. Through his shattering of architectural reference standards Libeskind could also be considered an anarchist: one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power. Anarchy is the absence of government; consequently, it is the state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. It is the absence or denial of any authority, established order, or ruling power.55 Anarchy opposes the measure or, to make the connection made earlier, it opposes the use of the scale model as a measuring mechanism within a governing reference standard. However, it is a widespread belief of psychology that nothing is harder to bear than complete freedom from any

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 115

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

restraint. Imagine the architect’s state of mind as he or she attempts to define through the mechanism of a scale model – facing the responsibility for every decision, every move – without any reference standard to guide, without any standards to refer to, except the one of creating something recognizably his or her own and yet significantly different. In this light can Libeskind’s drawings prove difficult for architecture? Do the ideas behind his drawings threaten to downgrade architecture into a simple loyalty to a style in which it does not matter whether a work is good or bad as long as it seems right? The trend of deconstructivist architecture may push in this direction. We should consider if we help the architect by succumbing, without question, to the idea that what belongs to the future must not be criticized against a reference standard. As Raymond Queneau writes, Another very wrong idea that is also going the rounds at the moment is the equivalence that has been established between inspiration, exploration of the subconscious, and liberation, between chance, automatism, and freedom. Now this sort of inspiration, which consists in blindly obeying every impulse, is in fact slavery. The classical author who wrote his tragedy observing a certain number of known rules is freer than the poet who writes down whatever comes into his head and is slave to other rules of which he knows nothing.56 Can Libeskind’s architectural small-scale model machines be viewed as experiments? Experiments usually mean something very well defined and clearly circumscribed. They are used to confirm or refute a hypothesis about the nature of things. However, is it not important to maintain some form of understandable human reference standard by which the success or failure of these architectural experiments can be judged? Criticism is difficult if the standards against which to judge success or failure are removed. Of course, in architecture, such reference standards cannot be quite as clear-cut as they are in some other fields. Moreover, architectural criticism is very difficult to apply to Libeskind’s drawings, as it is usually done through the completed building. Manfredo Tafuri makes an interesting connection between the work of Daniel Libeskind and that of Giovanni Battista Piranesi. Tafuri’s The Sphere and the Labyrinth calls Piranesi the wicked architect. Tafuri uses Klossowski’s description of a 115

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 116

Architectural Model as Machine

‘worthy’ philosopher to express Piranesi’s relationship with architecture. Klossowski states, ‘It is the wicked man that favors his strongest passion, but the greater evil lies in concealing the passion under the appearance of thought, the wicked one sees nothing in the thought of the honest man than the covering up of an impotent passion.’57 He writes that in concealing the passion lies a great evil but, also, the evil of describing an action rather than committing it. Still, Klossowski points out that aberrations, such as Piranesi’s drawings, may have merit if they are considered as forms of action. Werner Oechslin describes Piranesi as a master of fantastic drawing, that represents ‘architectural ideals, purporting to be reality.’ Piranesi’s life did not allow him to practice architecture, either by choice or situation. Although he did design several interiors later in his life, his most important work remained two-dimensional. He understood architectural experiments and innovations only as representation. Oechslin also believes that Piranesi marked the beginning of the autonomy of architectural representation as a new category of architecture. Piranesi did not commit his passions to a building: instead he found architectural expression through drawing and etchings. In this way Piranesi can be seen as describing an action rather than acting on it. This discussion of Piranesi as an architect who did not build, at least not much, may also apply to the drawings by Libeskind. Piranesi never completed his work as architecture; instead he reproduced his etchings and showed them as an artist with architectural themes. Piranesi is using a political polemic as fuel for his exciting fantasies. Likewise, Libeskind is dialectically producing fantastic images in response to failures he sees in conventional architectural drawings. He is distorting our way of looking at architectural drawings by using a paradigmatic form that is circular. Like Piranesi, Libeskind puts the text in constant transformation, with repeated movement of projections. The works of Piranesi and Libeskind seem to contain a certain amount of ‘wickedness,’ and can be compared because their approach is similar. The projects of these two ‘architects,’ without clients or physical properties other than a sheet of paper, allow them a certain freedom of expression. Dalibor Vesely explains that Libeskind’s architecture is involved with ‘the world of ambiguous visual metaphors and fragments of objects in a dramatic process of transforming and projecting or to use the author’s own words, “deconstructing 116

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 117

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

constructions”.’58 Libeskind himself expresses that he wishes to release architects ‘from the dictatorship of proletarian thoughts, [where] space oozes out into a nebula that has no connection with any astral deity.’59 A replacement is not offered and it should be noted that Libeskind has just begun to develop his concepts through built architecture, making it difficult to criticize his process. Libeskind’s work is influenced by the work of postmodern literary criticism – especially the ideas of such French writers as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and JeanFrancois Lyotard, all of whom wish to expose what they see as the evils of late capitalism. Major philosophers of the movement, in particular Lyotard, have generally seen postmodern literary theory as liberating because it can be used to ‘deconstruct,’ as they say, the basis for all authority. Instead of single systems of reference standards, the postmodern world acknowledges a multiplicity of competing ideas. This may be a useful technique for a literary critic, but for an architect it can cause difficulty because architecture and literary criticism have different goals. Still, there are interesting similarities between the two, which may point the way to new and unusual connections of ideas for architecture. The dilemma of the deconstructivists is that they are continually deconstructing existing reference standards without constructing new ones. Could this not be considered contrary to the general purpose of architecture and the small-scale architectural model machine whose purpose is to construct definition? In this context, deconstructivism may create difficulties for the architect. Architecture is generally defined as the art or science of building, or specifically the art or practice of designing and building structures, especially habitable structures, defining and testing the principles of the trusted reference standard. Without an understandable and trusted reference standard, the architect’s small-scale model machine may take on an uncontrolled reflection of chaos. Could this create a trap for deconstructivism since any developed reference standard can be deconstructed, leaving only chaos? Could Libeskind, through his drawings, have painted himself into the corner of deconstructivism, leaving his scale model machines as his only means of escape? Through these scale model machines Libeskind seemingly attempts to re-enter the world of architecture. However, for Libeskind the machines are not as safe as his drawing because the machines 117

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 118

Architectural Model as Machine

can be more clearly engaged and entered and therefore criticized more easily than his earlier work. From the evidence of his scale model machines it appears that Daniel Libeskind is a student of architecture. What can be seen in his work is the education of the architect, not unlike what goes on in the early design studios of an architecture school. Most first-year studios begin by attempting to destroy their incoming students’ preconceived notions about architecture. However, in later studios these same students are asked to rebuild their belief systems. Libeskind’s work shows what he has learned. In his work ‘Three Lessons in Architecture,’ Libeskind tells us, I presented the organizers of this program with a piece of equipment, really one big movement in three parts. I will show it to you in three moments of the machine – the moment of reading, the moment of remembering and the moment of writing architecture . . . The three lessons that I have offered here are the three lessons of architecture: (a) reading architecture, and its equivalent, the reading machine; (b) the lesson in the present remembering of architecture, and the memory machine; (c) writing architecture, and its equivalent, the writing machine. So these are pieces of metaphysical equipment, because they don’t really do anything, they are in another realm.60 What Libeskind is describing here is the role of the architectural scale model machine. He continues: By the way, making machines, I discovered as I was doing this project, is an old task. Everybody needs machines. Vitruvius says that first of all an architect should make a machine – it is more important than making a city. Then he says you should also make theater and other things. Alberti says this as well. When I read Vitruvius and Alberti and they said every good architect must first make a machine to do architecture, I thought that if I am going to be a good architect I must follow the tradition to its end. So I tried to do it in a particular way. Libeskind describes his machines in this way (Figures 5.19–5.21): Lesson A: Reading Architecture (first model machine) Teaches an almost forgotten (medieval) process of building, a process of building, a process which is in its own way not yet fully unfolded in architecture. 118

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:02 PM Page 119

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

5.19 Reading machine, by Daniel Libeskind

Lesson B: Remembering Architecture (second model machine) Consists of that which can still be remembered in architecture. Lesson C: Writing Architecture (third model machine) Teaches the artless and scienceless making of architecture.61 Do these scale model machines represent Libeskind’s attempts to redevelop a relationship with a reference standard? Aldo Rossi, in his introduction to the ‘Three Lessons in Architecture’ project elaborates on this relationship when he writes, Of this project, I can repeat exactly what I wrote at the time, ‘Daniel Libeskind wants to destroy, to decompose architecture, strip it of its image, and then recompose it in these machines of the memory in which the town of Palmanova is concealed: the image of the designed city, 119

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:03 PM Page 120

Architectural Model as Machine

5.20 Memory machine, by Daniel Libeskind

5.21 Writing machine, by Daniel Libeskind

120

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:03 PM Page 121

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

best known perhaps in aerial photos and by its splendid ground plan, is dissolved in the machine, out of which emerge fragments that will presumably be legible only through the laborious workings of the machine itself.’62 According to this view Libeskind is using his scale model machine to begin to reconstruct his architectural reference standard. The three machines offer limits, direction and a framework within which Libeskind can move forward with his designs. In his dedication of the publication for his exhibition Libeskind thanks Aldo Rossi for directing him. Libeskind writes, I became aware of how much the thought, deep friendship and mysterious inspiration of Aldo Rossi has meant in my life – and not only in relation to the Biennale Works here presented. At this moment of illumination I understood that my own path in architecture had been rescued from derailment by living a common idea with him: architecture is for the other.63 The deconstruction of Libeskind’s reference standards creates a house of mirrors from which it is difficult to escape. It can be pointed out that those who have nowhere to point the arrow draw their bows in vain. Libeskind has, by deconstructing his reference standards, destroyed all of his targets. Architectural scale model machines offer Libeskind a possible solution to his dilemma. These mechanisms helped Libeskind recreate a relationship with some form of reference standards. His scale models can be seen as the reflection of the development of an architectural student. Like most students, his first goal in learning about architecture is to break down (deconstruct) preconceived notions about invisible things. The second goal is to rebuild (reconstruct) his reference standards, so he might control the message reflected from his scale model machines. The third goal in architecture is to build architecture as a means of testing his definition of these concepts of invisible things.

Conclusion Today there are architects who, through the use of scale models, are still searching for better definition. Their attempts at creating improved buildings, a form of technology, play a key role in this search. For these architects, technology appears to 121

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:03 PM Page 122

Architectural Model as Machine

offer a wonderful and somewhat controllable extension of the hand. To the Classical Greeks there was no clear division between art and technology. They had only one word for art, skill and craft – techne from which the word technology is derived. Techne can be related to concepts of creativity and invention. Martin Heidegger writes, ‘. . . from the earliest times until Plato the word techne is linked with the word episteme. Both words are names for knowing in the widest sense. They mean to be entirely at home with something, to understand or to be expert in it.’64 He suggests that techne is not only the name for the activities and skills of the craftsman, but also the arts of the mind. This is why, through observation, the architects’ buildings can raise wondrous, but not necessarily understandable questions about a chaotic universe. Here the technology of building changes from being a tool into a scale model. Today when these architects meet other architects, the questions raised by their buildings are often discussed. These architects remain not only compelled to create better buildings, but also to think about and make further explanations about their relationships to the universe. It is through the mechanism of their scale models, that these architects are offered the possibility of further understanding and defining in new ways the measure of things. The architectural scale model is a mechanism for creating definition, mediating between divine chaos and humanity’s cosmos. This is why an architectural scale model should be considered a machine, because it is a device used to extend human forces towards this goal. It is a mechanism that helps architects develop an understandable scale with which to measure the unknown. The architectural model machine is a scale device, which helps extend the architect’s intellectual might in an attempt to understand, define, and measure. There are two types of architectural models. The architectural reference standard model offers a concept of invisible things against which to measure. The architectural scale model machine is one of the mechanisms humanity uses to create a measure and test the concept of invisible things. Philosophies, religious myths, and political systems are reference standards developed to measure the perceived chaos of the unknown. These concepts become reference standards within which architects can develop specific small-scale model machines in an attempt to define an invisible future architecture. 122

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:03 PM Page 123

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

The architectural small-scale model machine serves as a surface on which to project thoughts in an attempt to develop the perfect design (an attempt at a true definition of invisible things). The scale model provides architects a mechanism with which they can test and re-examine their ideas in this attempt. Sometimes, however, the projection of thoughts makes the scale model machine appear to take on a life of its own. This life is a reflection of an individual’s imagination. The scale model is a machine for imagining, for developing the free associations needed to develop new ideas. To be useful for architects, the free association reflected from the scale model machine needs to be governed. This governing comes from the relationship of the architect with his or her reference standard. If the reference standard governs too loosely, the message received from the scale model machine will appear uncanny or overly spontaneous. If the reference standard governs too much then the message reflected from the scale model machine will be lifeless. The scale model machine is the mode in which the manner (control of society) is measured. By understanding the manner of the scale model machine it becomes possible to begin to understand what is being measured. What is reflected in the small-scale model machine is the architect’s relationship with the manner (modernity) and the accepted concept of invisible things. Physically, our architectural small-scale model machines have not greatly changed. They remain important thinking mechanisms used in the process of foretelling and defining future buildings. What appears to change is humanity’s general outlook as to what else these models are seen as defining. In this role, architectural models can be seen as partaking in measuring the rituals of life and defining a culture’s cosmos. The young architect stared at the design model. Last night the architect had seen the film Blade Runner. The film’s dark view of a polluted decaying future created disturbing images of possible mistakes. The model appeared to offer a similar message. The architect turned to the window and saw the lessthan-gleaming Modernist towers of the city. The future was not what it once was for it had shown too many flaws, creating an environment that was unpleasant to inhabit. Still they reminded the architect of the dream of a potential brave new future. The model appeared to offer a similar message. 123

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:03 PM Page 124

Architectural Model as Machine

The architect recalled the classical buildings seen in Europe last summer. To merely imitate such buildings seemed stifling and redundant. Still, many of the concepts behind these buildings seemed to remain valid. The model appeared to offer a similar message. The architect looked to the model again and saw a better view. This was a view that learned from past triumphs and mistakes. The architect began to have faith that through playing with this knowledge a new and improved model of the future was possible. The architect realized the future of this model could become a part of the model of the future. The model appeared to offer a similar message (Plate 10).

Notes 1. Calvino, Italo, Six Memos for the Next Millennium, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 122. Perec refers to George Perec, whose 1978 novel, Life, Directions for Use, was considered by Calvino to be the last real ‘event’ in the history of the novel to date. Ibid., p. 121. 2. Gardner, Helen, Art Through the Ages, (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1980), p. 848. 3. Trachtenberg, Marvin, Architecture, from Prehistory to PostModernism, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986), p. 511. 4. Martinell, Cesar, Gaudi: His Life, His Theories, His Work, translated by Judith Rohrer, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1975), p. 9. 5. Vesely, Dalibor, ‘Architecture and the Conflict of Representation’, A.A. Files #8, January 1985, p. 22. 6. Marinell, op. cit., p. 128. 7. Ibid., p. 128. 8. Ibid., p. 72. 9. Ibid., p. 63. 10. Ibid., p. 129. 11. Cirlot, Juan-Eduardo, The Genesis or Gaudian Architecture, (New York, NY: George Wittenborn, Inc., 1966). The ideological atmosphere of Gaudi’s time, second page. 12. Benevolo, Leonardo, History of Modern Architecture, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977), p. 319. 13. Hutchins, Robert M., ed., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1971), p. 489. 14. Benevolo, op. cit., p. 134. 15. Frampton, Kenneth, Modern Architecture 1851–1945, (Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1983), p. 226. 16. Benevolo, op. cit., p. 556. 124

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:03 PM Page 125

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

17. Ibid., p. 556. 18. Ibid., p. 556. 19. Milner, John, Vladimir Tatlin and the Russian Avant-Garde, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 163. 20. Milner, op. cit., p. 156. 21. Ibid., p. 165. 22. Ibid., p. 161. 23. Smith, Alan H., Encyclopaedia Americana, (Danbury, CT: Encyclopaedia Americana, 1982), p. 216. 24. Ibid., p. 216. 25. Conrads, Ulrich, Programs and Manifestations on 20th-Century Architecture, (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1977), p. 121. 26. Nisbet, Peter, ed., El Lissitzky (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Art Museums, 1987), pp. 14–16. 27. Ibid., p. 40. 28. El Lissitzky presented this idea to his student when he wrote that they would have ‘the opportunity to become acquainted with the fundamental methods and systems of architecture and to learn to express their own architectural ideas in drawing and the three dimensions (through working with models).’ Railing, Patricia, More about 2, (Kent, UK: Hand Press, 1990), p. 14. 29. Nisbet, op. cit., p. 18. 30. Ibid., p. 19. 31. Ibid., p. 19. 32. Conrads, op. cit., p. 121. 33. Ibid., pp. 121–122. 34. Ibid., pp. 121–122. 35. Ibid., pp. 121–122. 36. Ibid., p. 122. 37. Ibid., p. 122. 38. Nisbet, op. cit., p. 19. 39. Ibid., p. 19. 40. Bulfinch, Thomas, Bulfinch’s Mythology of Greece and Rome with Eastern and Norse Legends, (New York, NY: Collier Books, 1971), p. 370. 41. Ronner, Heinz and Vhaveri, Sharad, Louis I. Kahn, Complete Works 1935–74, (Boston, MA: Birkhauser, 1987), p. 336. 42. Kahn, Louis I., Between Silence and Light, (New York, NY: Random House, 1979), p. 32. 43. Ibid., p. 20. 44. Ibid., p. 20. 45. Ronner, op. cit., p. 339. 46. Kahn, op. cit., p. 20. 47. Ibid., p. 20. 48. Fordham, Frieda, An Introduction to Jung’s Psychology, (Middlesex, UK: 1987), p. 50. 49. Smith, op. cit., p. 336. 125

ALBE-05.QXD 22/7/04 10:03 PM Page 126

Architectural Model as Machine

50. Ronner, op. cit., p. 339. 51. Libeskind, End Space (London, UK: The Architectural Association, 1980), p. 2. 52. Ibid., p. 2. 53. Ibid., p. 10. 54. Ibid., p. 6. 55. The word ‘anarchy’ comes form an- which means ‘without’ and arkhos, meaning ‘ruler.’ Hutchins, op. cit., p. 78. 56. Calvino, op. cit., p. 123. 57. Tafuri, Manfredo, The Sphere and the Labyrinth, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), pp. 46–47. 58. Libeskind, op. cit., pp. 10–12. 59. Libeskind, Daniel, Nouvelles Impressions D’Architecture (Milan, Italy: Electa Spa, 1988). 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid., Introduction. 63. Ibid., Dedication. 64. Heiddeger, Martin, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, (New York, NY: Harper and Rowe Publishers, 1977), p. 13.

126

ALBE-BIB.QXD 22/7/04 10:05 PM Page 127

Bibliography Ackerman, James S. (1954). Architectural practice in the Italian Renaissance. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 13. Ackerman, James S. (1986). The Architecture of Michelangelo (2nd edn). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Alberti, Leon Battista (trans. John R. Spencer, 1966). On Painting. Yale University Press. Alberti, Leon Battista (trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavernor, 1988). On the Art of Building in Ten Books. MIT Press. Alexander, Tzonis and Diane Lefaivre (1985). The machine in architectural thinking. Daidalos 18. Ames, William (translated with introduction and commentary by Lee W. Gibbs 1979). Technomery. University of Pennsylvania Press. Angeles, Peter A. (1981). Dictionary of Philosophy. Barnes and Noble Books. Atkin, William Wilson (1976). Architectural Presentation Techniques. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Barasch, Moshe (1985). Theories of Art from Plato to Winckelman. New York University Press. Baudrillard, Jean (translated by Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Phillip Beitchman, 1983). Simulations. Semiotext, Inc. Beardsley, Monroe C. (1966). Aesthetics from Classical Greece to the Present, a Short History. The University of Alabama Press. Benevolo, Leonardo (1977). History of Modern Architecture. MIT Press. Benjamin, Walter (ed. Hannah Arendt 1969). Illuminations. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Schoken Books. Birren, Gaber (1988). The Symbolism of Color. Citadel Press. Bissare, Michael (ed. 1979). Western Art. Exeter Books. Bisi, Lucia (1980). The rotary home. Lotus 40. Blumenberg, Han (1985). Work on Myth. MIT Press. Bonta, J.P. (1979). Simulation games in architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 33. Bourriau, Janine (1988). Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

ALBE-BIB.QXD 22/7/04 10:05 PM Page 128

Architectural Model as Machine

Bragdon, Claude (1978). The Beautiful Necessity, Seven Essays on Theosophy and Architecture. The Theosophical Publishing House, first guest edition. Bullfinch, Thomas (1942). The Age of Fable. The Heritage Press. Burroughs, Betty (1946). Vasari’s Lives of the Artists, the Classic Biographical Work on the Greatest Architects, Sculptors and Painters of the Renaissance. Simon and Schuster. Cable, Carole (1982). The Architectural Model. Vance Bibliographies. Calvino, Italo (1988). Six Memos for the Next Millennium. Harvard University Press. Carter, A. (1977). Idea as a model seriously impractical. Progressive Architecture, Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, vol. 58. Casti, John L. (1989). Mathematical Model, Alternate Realities of Nature and Man. John Wiley and Sons. Celant, Germano (1987). Il progetto e un oggetto, Rassegna 9, 32. Cirlot, Juan-Eduardo (1966). The Genesis of Gaudian Architecture. Wittenborn, Inc. Colins, Peter (1964, English translation, 1970). Mechanical Analogy, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture. MIT Press. Collingwood, R.G. (1964). Essays in the Philosophy of Art. Oxford University Press. Croce, Benedetto (1970). Aesthetic. Macmillan and Co. Croset, Pierre-Alain (1987). Microcosmi dell’architetto. Rassegna, December, 9, 32. Dalby, Stuart (1980). Making Model Buildings, Dorset: Blandford Press, distributed by Sterling Pub. Co. Doob, Penelope Reed (1990). The Idea of the Labyrinth. Cornell University Press. Eco, Umberto (edited by Thomas A. Sebeck, 1983). The Sign of Three: Dupin, Holmes, Pierce. Indiana University Press. Eliade, Mircea (translated by David Green, 1963). The Sacred and Profane. Holt Rinehart and Winston. Evans, Robin (1986). Translations from drawing to building. AA Files, Number 12. Fabricius, Johannes (1976). Alchemy. Rosenkilde and Bagges. Filarete (translated by John R. Spencer, 1965). Treatise on Architecture. Yale University Press. Fleming, John (1985). The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture. Penguin Books Ltd. Fordham, Frieda (1987). An Introduction to Jung’s Psychology. Penguin Books. Foucault, Michel (1982). This is Not a Pipe. University of California Press. Frampton, Kenneth (1983). Modern Architecture 1851–1945. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. Frampton, Kenneth and Silvia Kolbowski, ed. (1983). Idea as Model, Catalog 3, Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies. Rizzoli International Publications. Frascari, Marco (1990). A secret semiotic skiagraphy: the corporal theater of meaning in Vincenzo Scammozzi’s ‘Idea’ of architecture. Via 11. Frascari, Marco (1991). Monsters of Architecture. Rowman and Littlefield Publishing, Inc. Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1989). Truth and Method. Crossroad. Gardner, Helen (1980). Art Through the Ages. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Goldwaite, Richard A. (1980). The Building of Renaissance Florence: An Economic and Social History. Johns Hopkins University Press.

128

ALBE-BIB.QXD 22/7/04 10:05 PM Page 129

Bibliography

Gombrich, E.H. (1963). Meditations on a Hobby Horse. University of Chicago Press, Phaidon Press Limited. Gombrich, E.H. (1972). Art Perception and Reality. Johns Hopkins University Press. Gombrich, E.H. (1972). Symbolic Images – Study in the Art of the Renaissance II. University of Chicago Press. Gombrich, E.H. (1979). Legend, Myth and Magic in the Image of the Artist. Yale University Press. Gombrich, E.H. (1979). The Sense of Order. Cornell University Press. Gombrich, E.H. (1982). The Image and the Eye. Cornell University Press. Gombrich, E.H. (1984). Art and Illusion. Princeton University Press. Gombrich, E.H. (1988). The Story of Art. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Gombrich, E.H. (1989). Leonardo. Yale University Press. Goodman, Nelson (1988). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Hackett Publishing Co., Inc. Gorlin, Alexander (1982). The ghost in the machine: surrealism in the work of Le Corbusier. Perspecta 18. Granger, Frank (translator 1983). Vitruvius on Architecture. Harvard University Press. Greenstreet, Bob (1988). Architectural Representation. Prentice-Hall. Hall, James (1979). Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art. Harper & Rowe. Hans, James S. (1980). Hermeneutics, Play and Deconstruction, Philosophy Today. Messenger Press, 24. Hans, James S. (1981). The Play of the World. The University of Massachusetts Press. Harmon, Robert B. (1980). Architectural Models. Vance Bibliographies. Hersey, George (1988). The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture. MIT Press. Hobson, Christine (1987). Exploring the World of the Pharaohs. Paul Press Limited. Hohauser, Sanford (revised by Helen Demchyshyn 1st and 2nd eds, 1984). Architectural and Interior Models. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Hubbard, Howard (1978). Michelangelo, Painter, Sculptor, Architect. Vendrome Press. Hulten, Karl Gunnar Pontus (1968). The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age. The Museum of Modern Art. Janke, Rolf (1969). Architectural Models. F.A. Praeger. Janke, Rolf (1968). Architectural Models. Thames & Hudson. Janson, H.W. (1970). History of Art. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Johannes, Fabricus (1976). Alchemy. Rosenkilde and Bragges. Jung, Carl G., ed. (1968). Man and his Symbols. Dell Publishing. Kahn, Louis I. (1979). Between Silence and Light. Random House. Kearney, Richard (1988). The Wake of the Imagination. University of Minnesota Press. Koepke, Marguerite L. (1988). Model Graphics. Van Nostrand Reinhold. Kostof, Spiro (1977). The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession. Oxford University Press. Kostof, Spiro (1985). A History of Architecture (Settings and Rituals). Oxford University Press. Kris, Ernst and Otto Kurz (1979). Legend, Myth and Magic in the Image of the Artist (A Historical Experiment). Yale University Press. Lacey, A.R. (1986). A Dictionary of Philosophy. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd.

129

ALBE-BIB.QXD 22/7/04 10:05 PM Page 130

Architectural Model as Machine

Lavine, T.Z. (1984). From Socrates to Sartre. Bantam Books. Le Corbusier (1986). Towards a New Architecture. Dover Publications, Inc. Lethaby, W.R. (1974). Architectural Mysticism and Myth. The Architectural Press Ltd. Libeskind, Daniel (1980). End Space. The Architectural Association. Libeskind, Daniel (1981). Deus ex machina/machina ex deo. Opposition 21. Libeskind, Daniel (1988). Works. Electa Spa. Linton, Harold (1985). Color Model Environments (Color and Light in ThreeDimensional Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold. Loos, Adolf (translated by Jane O. Newman and John H. Smith, 1982). Spoken into the Void, Collected Essays 1897–1900. MIT Press. Lucci, Roberto (1989). Design Models. Van Nostrand Reinhold. Maldonado, Tomas (1987). Questioni di Similarita, Rassegna December, 9, 32. Martinell, Cesar (trans by Judith Rohrer, 1975). Gaudi: His Life, His Theories, His Work. MIT Press. McCarter, Robert (ed.) (1967). Building Machines. Princeton Architectural Press. McGinn Colin (1983). The Subjective View. Oxford University Press. Miller, John William (1980). The Definition of the Thing. W.W. Norton and Company. Millon, H.A. (1970). Observations on a newly discovered wood model for the south hemicycle vault of Michelangelo’s St Peter’s. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 29. Millon, H.A. and Smyth, C.H. (1976). Michelangelo and St Peter’s: Observations on the interior of the apses, a model of the apse vault, and related drawings. Rom Jahr Kunstges, 16. Millon, H.A. (1979). Note on Michelangelo’s façade for a palace for Julius III in Rome; new documents for the model. Burlington Magazine, 121. Milner, John (1983). Vladimir Tatlin and the Russian Avant-Garde. Yale University Press. Nisbet, Peter, ed. (1987). El Lissitszky. Harvard University Art Museums. Noth, Winfried (1990). Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press. Onion, C.T. (ed.) (1966). The English Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford University Press. Panofsky, Erwin (1955). Meaning in the Visual Arts. The University of Chicago Press. Panofsky, Erwin (1968). Idea, A Concept in Art Theory. Harper and Rowe. Panofsky, Erwin (1979). Abbot Suger. Princeton University Press. Panofsky, Erwin (1979). Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. The New American Library. Parrot, A. (1955). Mesopotamian house preserved in a terracotta model found at Mari. Illustrated London News, 227. Pattinson, Graham Day (1982). A Guide to Professional Architectural and Industrial Scale Model Building. Prentice-Hall. Perez-Gomez, Alberto (1985). The Myth of Daedalus. A. A. Files, #10. Peuvner, Nikolaus (1968). An Outline of European Architecture. Penguin Books Ltd. Phillips, Kyle Meredith Jr. (1985). Architectural Models – Italy. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, 14. Pierce, James Smith (1967). Architectural drawing and the intent of the architect. Art Journal, 27.

130

ALBE-BIB.QXD 22/7/04 10:05 PM Page 131

Bibliography

Plato (trans by B. Jowett, 1941). Apology, Crito, Phaed. Symposium and Republic, Walter J Black, Inc. Ponte, Alessandro (1969). Thinking machines. Lotus 3. Porter, Tom (1979). How Architects Visualize. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Puppi, Lionello (1987). Modelli di Palladio, modelli palladiani. Rassegna, 9, 32. Railing, Patricia (1990). More about 2. Hand Press. Ratensky, A. (1983). Drawing and Modelmaking: A Primer for Students of Architecture and Design. Watson-Guptill. Rauch, Thomas M., Jr (1967). Model study of buttressing the piers in Chartres cathedral. Gesta, 6. Regier, Kathleen J. (1987). The Spiritual Image in Modern Art. Theosopical Publishing House. Reid, Richard (1980). The Book of Building. Rand McNally & Co. Reid, William (1985). Architectural Model Masters. J.W. Walch. Reuther, Hans (1980). Das Modell des Salomoninschen Temples im Museum für Hamburgisch Geschichte. Niederdutsche Beitrage Zur Kenstgeschichte, 19. Ronner, Heinz and Sharad Vhaveri (1987). Louis I. Kahn, Complete Works 1935–74. Birkhauser. Rosenau, Helen (1979). Vision of the Temple. Oresko Book Ltd. Ruskin, John (1988). The Seven Lamps of Architecture. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Rykwert, Joseph (1981). On Adam’s House in Paradise. MIT Press. Rykwert, Joseph (1982). The Necessity of Artifice. Rizzoli International Publication, Inc. Saalman, Howard (1975). Michelangelo. Art Bulletin, 57. Scheffler, Isreal (1967). Science and Subjectivity. Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc. Schelz, Christian Norberg (1991). The new tradition. Architectural Design, St Martin Press, AD. Schuring, Dieterich J. (1977). Scale Modeling in Engineering. Pergamon Press. Scuri, Piera (1985). Skyscraper business. Domus 660. Summers, David (1990). The Judgement of Sense. Cambridge University Press. Tafuri, Mandredo (1987). The Sphere and the Labyrinth: Avant-Gardes and Architecture from Piranesi to the 1970s. MIT Press. Taylor, John Rueger (1971). Model Building for Architects and Engineers. McGraw-Hill. Tompkins, Calvin (1965). The Bride and the Bachelors. Viking Press. Trachtenberg, Marvin (1986). Architecture from Prehistory to Post-Modernism. Prentice-Hall Inc. Vasari, Giorgio (1946). Vasari’s Lives of the Artists. Simon and Schuster. Veseley, Dalibor (1985). Architecture and the Conflict of Representation. A.A. Files 8, 21–38. Veseley, Dalibor (1988). Architecture and the poetics of representation. Daidalos 25. Vidler, Anthony (1987). The architecture of the uncanny: the unhomely houses of the Romantic Sublime. Assemblage 3. Vitruvius (trans by F. Granger, 1948). Architecture in Ten Books. Harvard University Press. Vitruvius (trans by Morris Hicky Morgan, 1960). The Ten Books of Architecture. Dover Press.

131

ALBE-BIB.QXD 22/7/04 10:05 PM Page 132

Architectural Model as Machine

White, Anthony G. (1984). Architectural Models. Vance Bibliographies. Wilson, Richard Guy (1986). The Machine Age in America. The Brooklyn Museum. Wilton-Ely, John (1969). Architectural models. Architectural History 12. Wittkower, Rudolf (1971). Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. Wittkower, Rudolf and Margot (1963). Born under Saturn, Random House. Wollheim, Richard (1968). Art and its Objects. Harper and Row Publishers. Wollheim, Richard (1973). On Art and the Mind: Essays and Lectures. Penguin Books. Wright, Frank Lloyd (1963). The Future of Architecture. Mentor Books. Zhadova, Larissa A. (1988). Tatlin. Rizzoli International.

132

ALBE-Index.qxd 23/7/04 8:20 PM Page 133

Index A.E.G. Turbine Factory, 81 Absolutist government, 77 Academies, 74–7 Academy of Design, 26 Alberti, Leon Battista, xxv, 2, 25–30, 56, 58, 118 Alchemy, 101, 114 Allusion, 28–9, 47–8, 59 American Revolution, 77 Analog models, xix Analogy, 42, 59 Anarchists, 78, 79 Anarchy, 114, 126 Aquinas, St Thomas, 55 Archetypes, 31–2 Archimedes, 102 Architects, 59–60 education of see education of architects Architectural reference standard model, xxi, 122 see also reference standards Architectural scale model machine, xxi–xxiii, 122–3 Architectural scale models, 64 subcategories, xxix–xxx types of, xxi–xxiii, 122–3 Architecture, origins of, 4–5 Aristotle, xxi, xxv, 4, 55, 57, 71 Art Nouveau, 80 Artists, as mechanics, 45–6 Astronomy, 71–2 Athens, 8 Atomic bombs, 82 Augustine, St, 53 Automata, 73–4 Avant-garde, 79–80, 86, 99 Axis mundi, 101–2

Bakunin, Mikhail, 82 Barasch, Moshe, 23–4, 45–6, 53–4 Bauhaus, 81 Bawden, Sam, 70 Beauty, truth and, 94–5 Behrens, Peter, 81

Benevolo, Leonardo, 96–7, 99 Berlin airport, 78 Bibliotheque Ste Genevieve, 81 Bikini Atoll atomic testing, 90 Blumenberg, Hans, xxxi–xxxii Body, human, 101 Boundary, 5 Bourriau, Janine, 34 Bracelli, Giovanni Battista, 73 Brunelleschi, Filippo, 25, Plate 3 Bruno, Giordano, 71, 72 Bulfinch, Thomas, 40 Bundgaard, J., 9–10 Burkhardt, Jakob C., 25–6 Byzantine Empire, 18–19, 53–5

Caesar, Julius, 26 Callias, 14–15 Calvino, Italo, 90–1 Camillo, Giulio, xxix Carré d’Art, Nimes, Plate 8 Cartesianism, 73, 74, 75–6 Casti, John, xviii–xix Cathedrals, 64–6 Gothic, xxii, xxvii, 20–5 Catholicism, 93 and cathedral, 64–6 Cave, allegory of the, 46 Cave painting, xvi Chaos, 114 Charlemagne, 31 Chaucer, Geoffrey, xxvii, 58 Chess, 83 Chiasm, xxiv, xxx–xxxi Christianity/church: Catholicism, 64–6, 93 challenges to reference standard, 70–2, 75–6 Christianity as myth, 110–11 Iconoclastic controversy, xxv, 53–5, 57–8 Middle Ages, xxv, 18–25 and temple as ideal, 31, 32

ALBE-Index.qxd 23/7/04 8:20 PM Page 134

Index

Cigoli (Ludovico Cardi), Plate 4 Cirlot, Juan-Eduardo, 94 Colbert, Jean Baptiste, 75 Collective will, 100–1 Colosseum, Rome, 14 Communism, 106–7 Lissitzky, 103–4, 105 Tatlin, 98–9, 100 Concinnitas, 27 Constitutional government systems, 78 Constructivism, xxii–xxiii, 97–108, 111–12 Copernicus, Nicolas, 71–2 Corbusier, Le (C.E. Jeanneret), 61 Coulton, J.J., 10–11 Craftsmen, xxv, 57 Daedalus, 40–5 Plato and lack of education of, 47–9 Vitruvius and educated craftsman, xxv, 15–16, 50–3, 56, 57 Crystal Palace, 81

Dada movement, 82 Daedalus, xxv, 39, 52, 57, 73, 74 labyrinth, xxvii, 40–5, 58 Daidala (art objects), 41, 42 Dance, 43–4 Deconstructivism, 115, 117 Definition, xvi–xvii, xxiv Demiurge, 45 Demonstration, 2–3 Derrida, Jacques, 84, 117 Descartes, René, 73, 74 Design, xviii deus ex machina, 19 Diboutades, myth of, xxix Diognetus, 14, 16–17 Divine, 2–3 Doob, Penelope Reed, xxvii, 58–9 Dosio, Giovanni Antonio, 25 Drawings, Libeskind’s, 112–16 Dualism, 74 Duchamp, Marcel, 82–3

Ecole des Beaux Arts, Paris, 76 Educated craftsman, xxv, 15–16, 50–3, 56, 57, 58 Educated guardian class, 48, 52 Education of architects, 18–19, 57–8 Roman Empire, 15–17 Vitruvius and, xxv, 15–16, 50–3, 56, 57

134

Egypt, ancient, xxv, 1, 5–8, 8, 11 Eiffel Tower, 81 Element, and invention, 104 Empire State Building, 67 Engels, Friedrich, 78 Engineering models, xx Engineering principles, 15–17 Epimachus, 15 Etymology, xxiv Existentialism, 83

Faith, 84, 85, 109–10 Fantasia, 81 Fascism, 82 First World War, 99 Formalism, 105 Foucault, Michel, 117 Frankenstein (Mary Shelley), 76–7 Frascari, Marco, xxviii Freedom from restraint, 114–15 French academies, 75–6 French Revolution, 76, 77 Frontisi-Ducroux, Francoise, 40–1 Full-scale model machines, xxviii Functionalism, 81, 104–5 Funerary models, Egyptian, 7, 8, 34 Futurama model, 1939 World’s Fair, xv

Gadamer, Hans-Georg, xxiv, 84 Galatea, 69, 73 Galileo, 71–2, 75 Gardner, Helen, 35, 91 Gaudi y Cornet, Antonio, xxvii, 80, 89–90, 91–8, 107 Gehry, Frank, Plate 11 Geometry, 91–4 Giza, pyramids of, 6 Goering, Hermann, 78 Gombrich, E.H., 4, 5, 35 Gothic cathedrals, xxii, xxvii, 20–5 Government, 77–8 Greece, classical, xxv, 1–2, 8–14, 45, 58, 122 Greek humanism, 56 Green, Jason, 70

Hanging chain/wire models, 91, 92, 94, 95 Hans, James S., 84 Heidegger, Martin, 122

ALBE-Index.qxd 23/7/04 8:20 PM Page 135

Index

Hejduk, John, 113–14 Herod, 30–1 Heron of Alexandria, 19 Hershey, George, 8–9, 13 Hohauser, Stanford, xvii Holl, Steven, Plate 1 Homer, 41 Horace, 54 House of Heavy Industry, 102 House of Industry, 102 House of the Labyrinth, Pompeii, 43 House X, 49, Plate 6 Human body, 101 Humanism, 56, 72 Hume, David, xxi Hunter–gatherer structure, 3, 4

Iconoclastic controversy, xxv, 53–5, 57–8 Iconodules, 53–5 Icons, xxv, 53–5, 58, 60 Ideal, xxvi, 31 Illusion, 28, 45–7 Imhoptep, 7 Industrial Revolution, 77 Invention, element and, 104

Jacquet-Droz, Pierre, 73–4 Jerusalem, Temple of, xxv, 2, 30–2, 109 Jewish War Memorial, xxiii, 90, 108–12 Judaism, 32 Jung, Carl, 31–2, 110–11 Justinian, 31

Kahn, Louis I., xxiii, xxvii, 89–90, 108–12 Kant, Immanuel, 67, 84 Kepler, Johannes, 92–3 Kerenyi, Karl, 111 Klossowski, Pierre, 115–16 Kostof, Spiro, 5, 18–19, 35–6 Kurokawa, Kisho, Plate 16

Labyrinth, xxvii, 40–5, 58 Laurentian Library, 25 Leonardo da Vinci, 72 Lethaby, W.R., 4–5 Lever, 101–2 Liberius, Pope, 31

Libeskind, Daniel, xxiii, xxvii, 89–90, 112–21, Plate 10 drawings, 112–16 machines, xxiii, 117–21 Light, 109 Lissitzky, El (Elaazar Markovich), xxvii, 89–90, 101, 102–8, 113, 125 Locke, John, 67 Loos, Adolf, 72, 81 Lyotard, Jean-Francois, 117

Machine Age, 81 Machines, xxviii–xxix, 19, 63–4 Libeskind’s, xxiii, 117–21 Vitruvian, 16, 17 Mackintosh, Charles Rennie, 80 Magic, 7–8, 33–4 Maison Carrée, Nimes, Plate 8 Mandala, 31–2 Manner, 66–7, 123 Maquettes, 2, 39 Martinell, Cesar, 91, 93–4 Marxism, 83 see also communism Mastabe, 6–7 Mathematical models, xviii–xix Mathematics, 72 geometry, 91–4 Measurement, 62–3, 66 Mechanical skills, 49, 57 Mechanism (model of universe), 73 Medici, Giovanni de’, 25 Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs, xxiii, 90, 108–12 Memory machine, 119, 120 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, xxix, xxx–xxxi Meyerhold Theater, 102 Michelangelo, xxii, 25, Plate 2 Middle Ages, xxv, 2, 18–25, 70–1 Iconoclastic controversy, xxv, 53–5, 57–8 Mies Memorial Plate, 13 Miller, John William, xvi, xvii, xxiii, xxx Milner, John, 101 Minotaur, 42, 43 Mode, 67 Model books, 22–4 Models, 61–2 categories of, xviii–xx Modernism, 79–81 Monsters, 43 Monument to the Third International, 98–102 Monuments, 5, 33

135

ALBE-Index.qxd 23/7/04 8:20 PM Page 136

Index

Morphosis, Plate 15 Murrow, Edward, xviii Myths, xxxi–xxxii, 58, 110–11

Nashville Parthenon, 11–13 Nature, 29, 49 New York Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs, xxiii, 90, 108–12 Nihilism, 83, 86–7 Nostradamus, 65 Noth, Winfried, 34 Notre Dame, 21

Objectivism, 80–1 Oechslin, Werner, 116 Oppenheimer, J. Robert, xviii Oud, J.J., 81 OuLiPo (Workshop of Potential Literature), 90–1

Palazzo Strozzi, 25 Pallasmaa, Juhani, 112–13 Pandora myth, 108 Pantheon, Rome, 14 Pappus of Alexandria, 18–19 Paradeigma, 10–11 Parthenon, 9 Nashville Parthenon, 11–13 Perec, George, 90–1 Perez-Gomez, Alberto, 41, 42, 43–4 Petitot, Jean, 73 Philosopher–ruler class, 48, 52 Piano, Renzo Plate, 14 Piranesi, Giambattista (Giovanni Battista), 113, 115–16 Plaster study models, 91, 94 Plato, xxv, 45–9, 52, 57, 59 Play, 84 Poetics, 90–1 Pompeii, 43 Postmodern literary criticism, 117 Pravda Headquarters, 102 Presentation models, xxx Projection, 65–6 Prometheus, 1 Propylaea, 9 Prouns, 103, 105–6, 113 Ptolemy, 71 Public buildings, 81 Punins, Nikolai, 100

136

Pygmalion, 69, 73 Pyramids, 6–7, 62

Qualitative models, xix–xx Queneau, Raymond, 90, 115

Rationalism, 72–7, 85–6 Reading machine, 118, 119 Reference standards, xviii, xxii, xxviii, xxx, 63, 69–70, 123 Changing relationship between scale model machine and, xxvi–xxvii, 69–87 Religion, 44 see also Christianity/church; Judaism Renaissance, xxii, 36, 66, 111–12 Alberti, xxv, 2, 25–30, 56, 58, 118 astronomy, 71–2 Representation, xx–xxi Ritual, 44 Rockwell, Anne, 20 Romantic Movement, 79 Rome, imperial, xxv, 14–17, 18 ‘Rosie the Riveter’, xviii Rossi, Aldo, 119–21 Rules, 84–5 see also reference standards Russian constructivism, xxii–xxiii, 97–108, 111–12 Rykwert, Joseph, 27

Saarinen, E., xxi Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, 91, 96, 97 Saint-Denis, 20, 22 San Petronio, Bologna, 25 Santa Maria del Fiore, 25, 26, Plate 4 Santa Maria Maggiore, 31 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 83, 84–5 Saturn rocket engine test bed, xix Scale, xviii, xxx Schuring, John, xix–xx Second World War, 81–2 Shadow, 110 Shelley, Mary, Frankenstein, 76–7 Siege machine, 16 Silence, 109 Simulacra, 13–14 Sistine Chapel, 31 Sketch models, xxix Small-scale model machines, xxviii Smith, Al, 67

ALBE-Index.qxd 23/7/04 8:20 PM Page 137

Index

Solomon, 30, 31 Sorcerer’s apprentice, 81 Soul, 74 Soviet constructivism, xxii–xxiii, 97–108, 111–12 Spinoza, Baruch, 67 St Peter’s, xxii, 25, 57 Stalin, Joseph, 106, 107 Stalinism, 82 Steiner House, Vienna, 72, 81 Study models, xxix–xxx Subjective models, xx Subjectivism, 80, 86 Suetonius, 26 Suger, Abbot, 20–1, 24–5 Summer, David, xxxi

Tafuri, Manfredo, 115–16 Tatlin, Vladimir, xxvii, 89–90, 98–102, 107–8 Taylor, Edward B., 34 Techne, 122 Temple of Jerusalem, xxv, 2, 30–2, 109 Temples, 30, 32, 36 Greek, 8, 9, 10 Thales of Miletus, 62, 68 Theodore of Studion, 54–5 Thinking machines, 70 Third International, Monument to the, 98–102 Tombs, 6–7 Totalitarian systems, 77–8 Trisonic wind tunnel, xix Truth, beauty and, 94–5

Ulm cathedral, 36 Unconscious imagery, 65–6 Undergraduate student models, 2, 40, 70 United States (US), 81 Utilitarianism, 104–5

Vanini, Lucilio, 71 Vasari, Giorgio, 25, 60 Vaucanson, Jacques, 73 Veseley, Dalibor, 91–3, 113, 116–17 Vico, Giambattista, 33 Villard de Honnecourt, 22–5 Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène, 93 Vitruvius Pollo, Marcus, xxviii, 2, 14–17, 49–53, 64, 118 educated craftsman, xxv, 15–16, 50–3, 56, 57 Voltaire, François M.A. de, 76

Will, collective, 100–1 Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, III, 12–13 Wind tunnel, xix Wittkower, Rudolf, 31 Wollheim, Richard, xxi World Trade Center Plate, 10 Wright, Frank Lloyd, 85 Writing machine, 119, 120

Ziggurat, 7 Zoser tomb complex, 6–7

137

ALBE-Index.qxd 23/7/04 8:20 PM Page 138

Albe-Plate.qxd 22/7/04 10:09 PM Page 1

Plate 1 Steven Holl holding model

Plate 2 The painting of Michelangelo Presenting Model to the Pope

Albe-Plate.qxd 22/7/04 10:09 PM Page 2

Plate 3 Filippo Brunelleschi (?), wooden model for the cathedral lantern

Plate 4 Cigoli, model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore

Albe-Plate.qxd 22/7/04 10:09 PM Page 3

Plate 5 The surviving parts of a model of the cathedral

Plate 6 House X

Albe-Plate.qxd 22/7/04 10:10 PM Page 4

Plate 7 Bible moralisee

Plate 8 Maison Carrée columns and Carré d’Art

Albe-Plate.qxd 22/7/04 10:10 PM Page 5

Plate 9 Rose window in French cathedral

Plate 10 Daniel Libeskind and his model of World Trade Center

Albe-Plate.qxd 22/7/04 10:11 PM Page 6

Plate 11 Architectural model from the office of Frank Gehry

Plate 12 Architectural model from the office of Frank Gehry

Albe-Plate.qxd 22/7/04 10:11 PM Page 7

Plate 13 Architectural model from the office of Morphosis

Plate 14 Architectural model of the city edge Mies Memorial

Albe-Plate.qxd 22/7/04 10:11 PM Page 8

Plate 15 Architectural model from the office of Renzo Piano

Plate 16 Architectural model from the office of Kisho Kurokawa