Ornament

 

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI 5/11/05 Date:___________________ Gavin Farrell ____________________________ I, _______________ _____________________________ ____________________________ ______________,, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:

Master of Architecture in:

School of Architecture and Interior Design in the College of DAAP It is entitled: Ornament: Semantics and Tectonics for Contemporary Urban Architecture

This work and its defense approved by:

Jeff Tilman Chair: _______________________________   David Niland _______________________________

       

John Hancock _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________

 

 

Ornament: Semantics Semantics and Tectonics for Contemporary Urban Architecture A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Ad vanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE In the school of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Art, Architecture and Planning P lanning (DAAP) 2005  by Gavin R. Farrell B.S. Arch, University of Cincinnati, 2003 Committee chairs: Jeff Tilman David Niland John Hancock

 

 

i

Abstract

____________________________________________________________

With some notable exceptions, ornament today has largely increased its scale and reduced its descriptive content in what can only be described as an evasion of putting forward a readable socially-relevant meaning. It may be that current current sentiments of a diverse, relativistic modern society prevent ornament’s conveyance of direct idealistic social messages. If this is so, then ornament has two ‘holding patter patterns;’ ns;’ 1. To express the  purpose of the building, and 2. to increase the building’s significance. The theoretical root of the problem of ornament will be investigated, and its various types and methods of application will be described with an eye for giving an understanding of ornament’s strengths, weaknesses, and its intimate, mutually-enhancing connection with form, st

structure, and the resultant space. Tentative principles of use for the 21  century will be developed, suggesting the necessity of a real or implied relationship between tectonics and semantics.

 

 

 

 

iii

Contents_______________________________________________________________ Abstract

i

Contents

ii

List of Illustrations

iii

Introduction

1

1. Ornament: Definition and Etymology

4

2. The Meaning of Ornament: Psychology and Origin

8

3. Vitruvius to the Italian Renaissance Writers

16 th

4. Growing Rationalism: Baroque through the 18  Century

54

th

86

th

119

5. 19  Century and Ornament 6. 20  Century and Ornament st

7. Conclusion: Principles and Propriety for the 21  Century 8. The Project

 

144 152

Bibliography

157

Program

162

 

iv

 

Illustrations 3.1.1 

____________________________________________________________

Sebastiano Serlio, On Architecture: Volume I, Books I-V of ‘Tutte L’Opere  D’Architettura et Prospetiva’  Prospetiva’ , trans. Vaughn Hart Hart and Peter Hicks. Hicks. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1996.

3.2-4

Serlio, On Architecture. 

3.5

Anthony Blunt, Philibert de l’Orme l’Orme. A. Zwemmer Ltd., London. 1958.

3.6-3.7 Andrea Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans. Robert Tavernor, Richard Schofield. MIT Press paperback edition, Cambridge Massachusetts, 2002. 4.1

Emil Kaufmann, Three Revolutionary Architects, Boulée, Ledoux, and Lequeu. The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1952.

4.2

Internet source

4.3-5

Kaufmann, Three Revolutionary Architects..

4.6

J.N.L. Durand, Précis des leçons d’architecture d’architecture données à ll’École ’École Polytechnique, trans. David Britt, intr. Antoine Antoine Picon. Getty Research Institute Publications Publications Program, Los Angeles, 2000.

4.7

Louis Sullivan, A System of Architectural Architectural Ornament Accordi According ng with a Philosophy of  Man’s Powers. Eakins Press, New York, 1967.

4.8

Frank Lloyd Wright, et. al, Frank Lloyd Wright: Wright: The Complete “Wendingen” Ser Series ies, int. Donald Hoffman. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1992.

4.9

E.H. Gombrich, The Sense of Order: A Phaidon Press Limited, Oxford, 1979.

5.1

Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in  Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture.  MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts,

study in the Psychology of Decorative Art.

Kenneth Frampton, 2001.

5.2

Selections from Owen Jones, The Grammar of Ornament . DK Publishing, In., New York, 2001., Frampton’s Studies in Tectonic Culture, and Frank Russell, ed.  Art Nouveau  Architecture. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., New York, 1979.

5.3

Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, The Architectural Theory of Viollet-le-Duc:  Readings and Commentary. ed. M.F. Hearn. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990.

5.4

Russell, Art Nouveau Architecture. 

5.5

John Zukowsky, ed. Chicago Architecture, 1872-1922. Prestel-Verlag, Munich, in association with the Art Institute of Chicago, 1987.

5.6

Kenneth Frampton,  Modern Tokyo, Japan, 1981.

Architecture 1851-1919. A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd.

 

 

v

  5.7

Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, The Architectural Theory of Viollet-le-Duc:  Readings and Commentary. ed. M.F. Hearn. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990.

5.8

Karsten Harries, The Massachusetts, 2000.

5.9

Otto Wagner,  Modern Architecture, trans and int. Harry Francis Mallgrave. Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, Santa Monica, 1988.

Ethical Function of Architecture.  MIT Press, Cambridge

5.10-11 Russell, Art Nouveau Architecture. Architecture.  5.12-14 Frampton, Modern Architecture Architecture 1851-1919.  5.15

Russell, Art Nouveau Architecture. Architecture. 

6.1

Thomas Beeby, “Grammar of Ornament/Ornament as Grammar” Stephen Kiernan. Falcon Press, Philadelphia, 1977. 1977.

6.2-8

Frank Lloyd Wright, et. al, Frank Lloyd Wright: Wright: The Complete “Wendingen” Ser Series ies, int. Donald Hoffman. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1992.

VIA III   Ornament , ed.

6.9-12 Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture.  6.13-14 Frampton, Modern Architecture Architecture 1851-1919.  6.15 

Beeby, “Grammar of Ornament/Ornament as Grammar”, Jones The Grammar of Ornament, and Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture. trans. Frederick Etchells. Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1986.

6.16

Kenneth Frampton, Le Corbusier: Architect Inc., Publishers, New York, 2002.

6.17

Beeby, “Grammar of Ornament/Ornament as Grammar”, Jones Ornament. 

of the Twentieth Century. Harry N. Abrams, The Grammar of

6.18-19 Frampton, Le Corbusier: Architect of of the Twentieth Century. 6.20

William J.R. Curtis,  Modern Architecture 2000., Jones The Grammar of Ornament.

Since 1900. Phaidon Press Limited, London,

6.21-3 Curtis, Modern Architecture Architecture Since 1900. 6.24

Peter Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern University Press, Montreal, 1998 edition.

Architecture: 1750-1950. McGill-Queens

6.25 

Curtis, Modern Architecture Architecture Since 1900.

6.26

Frampton, Le Corbusier: Architect of of the Twentieth Century.

6.26, 7.1 Denise Scott Brown, Brown, Steven Izenour, Robert Robert Venturi, Learning From Las Vegas. Vegas. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1977.

 

 

1

Introduction____________________________________________________________ The argument for an ornamented contemporary architecture begins with several assumptions: 1.  That Architecture can and in some cases should convey meaning. 2.  That the meaning, if it is worth communicating, should be clearly readable. 3.  That abstract form alone is insufficient to fully convey meaning; ornament expands architecture’s capability for communication. 4.  Ornament that evidences human craftsmanship is valued by society. Perhaps the weakest assumption is the first. In 1831, Victor Hugo boldl boldlyy declared in The  Hunchback of Notre Dame: Dame : ‘the book will kill the building’ and that as humanity’s main form of expression ‘architecture is dead.’1  The role of commu communicating nicating the ggreat reat ideas of hum humanity anity had  been stripped from architecture’s hands and taken to the printing press. Hugo’s statement has  particular relevance for ornament because undeniably architectural ornament has played a great role in the communication of ideas; in much architecture perhaps more so than space, form, or structure. Alternate mediums of commun communication ication have usu usurped rped this importan importantt role of ornament; even in 1831 Hugo discerned a movement towards un-ornamented geometric abstraction that would eventually be fully realized by the Modern Movement: “Starting with Francis II, the architectural form of the edifice was rubbed off and allowed the geometrical forms to become visible… The The sweeping lines of art were replaced by geometry’s cold, inexorable on ones. es. A  building became a polyhedron.”2  Hugo su suggests ggests th that at since buildings were not needed for communication any longer longer they were becoming mute geometric geometric exercises. As late as Complexity and Contradiction  Contradiction  in 1966 architects were still attempting to come to terms with their displacement in society: Industry promotes expensive industrial and electronic research but not architectural experiments, and the Federal government diverts subsidies toward air transportation, communication, and the vast enterprises of war or, as they call it, national security, rather than toward the forces for the direct direct enhancement of life. The practicing architect must admit this. …Architects should accept th their eir modest role rather than disguise disguise it…3  

1 Victor

Hugo, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. Notre-Dame. trans. Catherine Liu, Random House, Inc. New York, 2002 Modern Library Paperback Edition. 161, 171. 2  Hunchback , 170.  Hunchback  3  Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Architecture. Museum of Modern Art, New York, Second Edition reprint, 1998. 44.

 

2

 

We have to face the fact that Hugo, Venturi and Scott Brown’s observations are correct. However, although architecture and ornament are no longer a primary focus of society there is no reason why ornament cannot still still communicate meaning. The book may have killed architecture,  but now it seems as though the book itself has been killed in turn by other mediums. Yet architecture is still here with an important, if diminished, role of social support to play and ornament’s vast potential in this role has remained relatively untapped for the past sixty years. The second assumption should be easy to accept, one who speaks always wishes to be understood. Today a certain vague lev level el of abstraction seems to be requisite for architectural expression, making the meaning, meaning, if there is one, an exercise in intellectual intellectual extrapolation extrapolation.. It is supposed that non-specificity is a good thing for art, but it is felt that as soon as architecture’s message becomes clouded by abstraction the general public begins to either miss the message or lose interest, contributing contributing even more to architect’s already already marginal social standing. standing. If we feel confident about our messages, surely we should want to see them understood and appreciated. Representational ornament has remained the most lucid, if not the only way, for architects to communicate. The argument for ornament relies on the proposition that abstract form lacks the same communicative depth that that a fully developed ornam ornament ent carries. The power of certain pure forms and spatial techniques, i.e. the dome, the vault, cubes, pyramids, shattered forms, blobs, convexity/concavity, spatial compression/releas convexity/concavity, compression/release, e, play with light, etc, is not contested. These are all useful devices, but at best they are only suggestive. suggestive. The ornament is what truly ‘fleshes out’ meaning and visually displays displays a building’s significan significance. ce. It will be shown how abstract form and tectonics are what prepare a work for a message, and ornament is the device that makes the message specific. message  specific. The last assumption, assumption, that ornament is valued, valued, hardly needs provi proving. ng. Ornamental pieces of historic buildings buildings are regularly salvaged and re-us re-used. ed. When rehabilitatin rehabilitatingg older structures it is felt to be of prime importance not to mar or destroy any ornament, so much so that it is in our laws. Nostalgia or not, this clearly demonstrat demonstrates es that ornament is for some reason highly valued,

 

 

3

most obviously because of the human investmen investmentt ornament makes apparent. The suggestion is that if architects want their buildings to be highly valued, using ornament is a good way to do so. The use of the word ‘ornament’ will be surveyed in the discourse from Vitruvius to  present day, carefully noting modifications of use and significant issues, such as the machine, rationalism, the relationship with structure, general theories of ornament, and the influence of  philosophy. It will be noticed that what architects have called ornament has migrated in many directions beyond the traditional understanding; into the form and structural frame, and gradually increasing in scale to the point point where it encompasses the entire build building. ing. It may be felt that once the entire building becomes ornament then it is no longer ornament; but nonetheless architects have used the term in that fashion to describe their own work and in a certain sense it can be seen as an appropriate use of the term; for instance, a role that ornament used to play – communication c ommunication  – is now undertaken by the the building at large. If this increase in scale is not accompanied by the application of new detail-scale ornament, the architecture loses not only the communicative ability of fine, small-scale representational ornament, but also divorces itself from the connection to craft, as the influence of the human hand is significantly significantly less apparent in macro-orn macro-ornament. ament. The various types and metho methods ds of employment of ornament shall be classified, and the strengths and limitations of each method will be illustrated for specific situations (most notably restricted urban sites versus relatively free rural sites). With the survey of the di discourse scourse completed, the current condition condition of architecture will  be evaluated for the potential of ornament today, always with reference back to the initial assumptions: what rules rules of propriety are sensitive for us today? What can ornament be useful for in our present condition? Fundamentally, this thesis is a plea to reduce the abstraction and decrease the scale of today’s ornament in an attempt attempt at clarification of meaning. It is believed that this this reduction in scale will produce ornament ornament that re-establishes the valued connection connection with human labor. labor. Surely we wish for our work to have greater meaning and be valued, and ornament has much to offer in this regard.

 

4

 

1. The Word Ornament: Definition and Etymology___________________________ …to deal with whatever ornament may be strikes at the very core of the visual experience, where that experience is not skewed by taste, snobbery, ideology, social convention, ecclesiastical or  political restrictions, restrictions, stylistic sa salesmanship, lesmanship, and aall ll sorts of other rrefinements… efinements…4  Oleg Grabar, The Mediation of Ornament What is architectural architectural ornament? The boundaries of the con concept cept are elusiv elusive. e. When attempti attempting ng to distinguish ornament from finer manipulations such as the entasis that occurs in classical columns, architectural historian and critic John Summerson eventually concluded that “perhaps it is best not to define.”5  Leone Battista Alberti, befor beforee giving us the first theoretical theoretical definition of ornament in the architectural discourse in his 1450  De Re Aedificatoria Aedificatoria,, hesitantly noted: “The  precise nature of beauty and ornament, and the difference between them, the mind could perhaps visualize more clearly than my words could explain.” 6  The limiting nature of words has in fact always been a stumbling block for architects from the very beginning of our written record, as Vitruvius notes: “terms which originate in the peculiar needs of the art [of architecture], give rise to obscurity of ideas from the unusual use of language”.7 Furthering the difficulties of language, attempting to move toward a definition for ornament we are presented with several near-synonymous words: decoration, embellishment, and enrichment, the most most significant ooff which is ‘deco ‘decoration.’ ration.’ The need to ddistinguish istinguish bbetween etween ornament and decoration did not make itself felt within the discourse until, not surprisingly, the threatening rise of a competitive profession in the 19 th  century: interior decoration. Responding to the threat, it was attempted by some to distinguish ornament from decoration; but such redefinitions are usually more interesting as revelations of the theoretical agenda of the architects involved. Previously, architects happi happily ly used the terms synonymous synonymously ly (and many continue to);

4

 Oleg Grabar, The Mediation of Ornament. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1992. 44.  John Summerson, “What is Ornament and What is Not” VIA III  Ornament . Falcon Press Press,, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 1977. In Summerson’s “Mischevious “Mischevious Analogy” he also notes that “the dividing line between ‘texture’ and surface ornament is very hard to draw.” In one of the most important books on ornament, E.H. Gombrich’s The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art  Gombrich  Gombrich also comments in the preface on the undefine-ability of ornament and, unwilling to make a specific definition, remarks “Luckily it is a mistake to think that what cannot be defined cannot be discussed.” 6  Leon Battista Alberti, On Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Books . trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1988. 156, Book 6 chapter 2. 7 Books, 129.  The Ten Books, 5

 

 

5

had the rising new professionals given themselves the appellation ‘interior ornamenters,’ undoubtedly the sensitive situation would be reversed. Any distinction may be a futile one; investigation into the etymology of decoration and ornament reveals a close connection.

Both are Latin-based words, ornamentum ornamentum   and

decorationem, built from the root ‘order.’ decorationem, ‘order.’ The similarities of tthe he two words perhap perhapss lead to the invention of the archaic English word “decorament,”8 which is no longer in use, but the existence of such a curious hybrid shows shows an early confusion in the treatment of the words. Observe: Decoration, Decorament, Adornment, Ornament One can see a relationship between the words in the repetition of the ‘or’ relating back to order. The difference occurs when the visual sign of order has been “added” (adorned) or “decked” (‘decored’) onto the object or building building in question, a rather subtle distinction. distinction. The suffixes, ‘ion’ and ‘ment’ both mean ‘state of being.’ Alternately, the suffix ‘ent’ means ‘that shows or does.’ Literally speaking, decoration is a bedecking that shows or makes a state of being in order (very close to ‘decorum’), while ornament is slightly more general; something that shows a state of  being in order. Both have developed beautifying and honorific connotations to the point where the original connection to ‘order’ is an etymologic foo footnote. tnote. The ancient Greek word for ornament, kosmos kosmos,, also close to ‘order,’ makes the world-ordering nature of ornament even more apparent with the modern descendant ‘cosmic.’9   Kosmos  Kosmos   regrettably also has the very nonarchitectural modern association with the word ‘cosmetics,’ which are a form of ornament or decoration – but it must be accepted that cosmetics serve to make apparent a certain social order that however superficial is greatly greatly important to us. Taking the words literall literally, y, both ornament and decoration in the context of architecture can be seen as devices for making an order – either  social or architectural  architectural  –  – apparent. Ornament and decoration have received slightly different connotations from their disciplined use in in a few specific cases. Bolstering the honori honorific fic connotation of decoration, decoration, one

8

 See Oxford English Dictionary  Kent Bloomer and James Trilling discuss the Greek word kosmos as the ancient word for ornament in their respective books, The Nature of Ornament: Rhythm and Metamorphosis in Architecture and Ornament: A Modern Perspective. Trilling invents the term “kosmophobia.”

9

 

6

 

always receives ‘decorations’ ‘decorations’ for valor under fire, never ‘ornamentation ‘ornamentations.’ s.’ However, honors are not entirely for decoration, as the phrase ‘an ornament to one’s profession,’10  also suggests a highly honorific honorific connotation. Ornament has acquired a slight slightly ly more ‘architectural’ connotation, connotation, while ‘decoration’ is something often restricted for interiors: ‘I love how you’ve decorated the  place,’ never ‘ornamented the place.’ This is almost entirely due to the association of the word ‘decoration’ with the interior decoration profession, although the use of the word ‘decorations’ for stage-sets has also helped establish a more ephemeral feeling for the word. 11  Observing the use of the words pre-19th  century in the architectural discourse, it is apparent that the word ‘decoration’ is happily happily applied w where here ‘ornament’ is often used. Many notable archit architects ects and scholars have continued to use the words interchangeably. Since the field of architecture is rather confused on the matter, it is worth noting that the field of music has managed to retain strong discipl discipline ine in use the of the word ‘orn ‘ornamentation.’ amentation.’ In classical music, the term “ornament” is rigorously applied to notes added to an already completed co mpleted  piece, and the term decoration, although it could be, is never used for such notes.12  This is entirely within the ‘beautifying’ connotation of the word; the ordering structure of the piece has already been created, and the extra notes are added as adornment to the structure, perhaps making the structure more evident evident with their pres presence. ence. How music has managed ttoo retain such strong discipline while architecture has not is an open question that shall not be attempted here, but it may be traceable back to a disciplined use of words in the first written theory on musical ornamentation. Words evolve their meaning via gradual changes in use, and the best way to judge what the word ‘ornament’ means to architects is by observing the contexts of its use and the definitions given to it to suit desired purposes. Listening to what architects are thinking thinking when they use the

10

 See Oxford O xford English Dictionary.  Differences of use also exist between nationalities. When discussing the words in his introduction, Gombrich uses ‘ornament’ to describe a knick-knack on the mantelpiece, while an American might be more comfortable using ‘decoration’ for such an object. 12  Simply reading the encyclopedia Britannica entry (The new Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 8. Micropaedia Ready Reference, 1998 edition) for “Ornament” (architectural) and “Ornamentation” (musical) shows the disciplined use of the word in the musical entry. In the architectural entry, decoration decoration and ornament are interchangeable. In the musical, only “ornament” and “ornamentation “ornamentation”” are used. 11

 

 

7

term ‘ornament’ lends great insights. insights. However, before entering a stud studyy of ornament’s use, a few  points can be made clear about architectural architectural ornament: 1. It has no quantitative function. 2. It is controlled by architects. (hence ‘architectural’ ornament) 3. When the word ornament appears, the guiding conventions of appropriateness,  propriety, or ‘taste’ are rarely far off. These words govern the resolution of the conflict of  perception of what the ‘order’  should  be,   be, outlining the type, style, or quantity of ornament that should be used in certain cases. A great problem for ornament iiss that these rules are entirely subjective and usually disseminated by a writer taking an arbitrary, authoritative stance. 4. Concerning order, there were two kinds of intent mentioned that buildings can communicate: architectural architectural and social social.. These make a di division vision betwe between en two major types of ornament or decoration; tectonic tectonic,, having to do with construction, an illustration of the order of  building, and semantic and semantic,, having to do with with meaning and soci social al messages, the order of society. society. The difference between tectonic and semantic ornament at first seems fairly clear; one is introverted towards the building for its inspiration, the other is extroverted, but often the distinction between the two can become unclear; for instance, tectonics carried out to extreme elaboration can achieve a semantic message of richness, and occasionally semantic devices such as caryatids can take up structural roles. However, it is felt that an anyy investigation into ornament will find the di division vision extremely useful. 5. Compositionally speaking, there are two large classifications for ornament:  patterned   and  free.  free.   Patterned ornament uses geometry and repetitio repetition; n; free ornamen ornaments ts are ind individual ividual elements unto themselves. Either can be repres representational entational or non-representational, non-representational, sema semantic ntic or tectonic, applied or integral.

 

8

 

2. The Meaning of Ornament: Origin and Psychology_________________________ In the preface to his The Sense of Order: A study in the Psychology of Decorative Art   E.H. Gombrich notes that “There is no tribe or culture which lacks a tradition of ornamentation.” 13  The universal nature of ornament in human society suggests a deep underlying force; either certain conditions of society make ornament necessary or the mechanisms for creation of it are deeply ingrained ingrained in ou ourr very being beings. s. Observing tthe he architecture an andd crafts of pre-modern civilizations it is obvious that ornament served a wide spectrum of social purposes; stating status,  providing amusement, amusement, or advertising messages of the state or church. An argument that ornament exists because it serves important needs of society will find much supporting material, however, it is far more interesting to argue that the composition of the human mind itself is pre-disposed towards the creation of ornament, and this pre-disposition has subsequently been seized upon for various social purposes. purposes. It has been shown how the w word ord has a connection to ‘showing ‘showing an order’ or ‘bringing into being being an order,’ along with its beaut beautifying ifying connotatio connotation. n. Consider the powerful opening lines of Alberto Pérez-Gómez’s Architecture Pérez-Gómez’s Architecture and the Crisis Crisis of Modern Scien Science: ce: The creation of order in a mutable and finite world is the ultimate purpose of man’s thought and actions. actions. There was probably ne never ver a human perception outside a framework 14 of categories…   While ‘purpose’ might be contested, there is no doubt that the creation of order does occupy a large portion of our efforts. Now consider the introdu introduction ction to a 1958 article entitl entitled ed “The Need to Classify”, by Roger L. Batten of the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Geology: One of mankind’s earliest intellectual endeavors was the attempt to gather together the seemingly overwhelming overwhelming variety presented by by nature into an orderly pattern. The desire to classify––to impose order on chaos and then to form patterns out of this order on which to base ideas and conclusions––re conclusions––remains mains one of our strongest urges.15   Finally, an example from American literature, Nathaniel West’s 1933 Miss 1933 Miss Lonelyhearts Lonelyhearts: Man has a tropism for order. Keys in one pocket, pocket, change in another. Mandolins are tuned G D A E. The physical world has a tropism for disorder, disorder, entropy. Man against Nature … 13

 E.H. Gombrich, The Sense of Order: A study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. Phaidon Press Limited, Oxford, 1979. vii. Owen Jones begins his chapter “Ornament of the Savage Tribes” with a similar note: “From the universal testimony of travelers it would appear, that there is scarcely a people, in however early a stage of civilization, with whom the desire for ornament is not a strong instinct.” 14  Alberto Pérez-Gómez, Architecture Pérez-Gómez, Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. Cambridge, Science. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1983. 15  Roger L. Batten, “The Need to Classify” Natural Classify”  Natural History, History, 67, No. 3, March March 1958. Quoted from a reprint reprint in the Smithsonian Institution Annual Report of 1958-59.

 

 

9

the battle of the centuries. Keys yearn to mix with change. Mandolins strive to get out of tune. Every order has within it the germ of destruction. All order is doomed, yet the battle is worth while.16   Architectural theory, science, and literature have all observed the same phenomenon. Evolutionary theory can explain why this is so: it is a simple matter of survival, if we give up the ‘battle’ we refuse to live. If one cannot make ordered sense of the environment, environment, one’s capacity for survival greatly diminishes. diminishes. With an understand understanding ing of the patterns and workings of our natural surroundings, surroundings, survival and reprodu reproduction ction are far more certain. A sense of order is highl highlyy  preferable to chaos; in chaotic situations (chaos created by a lack of understanding of the unseen order) one’s survival is threatened due to an inability to perceive threats, procure sustenance, and so on. At this point a ‘primitive hut’ theor theoryy of ornament can be advanced advanced.. The psychological need to form order is closely linked to our very survival; but what happens when due to our success at forming patterns the viscidities of life are momentarily put aside and we find ourselves with idle time? In a newfound state of leisure, this powerful powerful latent psychological force moves our our hands to externalize what we did while we were in survival mode – form abstract patterns reflecting nature – i.e, create ornament. 17  It has been said that orn ornament ament can be tectonic tectonic   or  semantic,, but this additional message is inherent in all ornament; it is a sign that somebody  semantic managed to establish a state wherein survival was no longer an issue – a state of plenty – and that they used the time to create something; a static, physical sign that, whatever its immediate  purpose might have been (if any), also makes evident evident that the basic wants of life had been enough fulfilled to engage in the art of ornament, the first visual art. 18  Perhaps today the success of science and technology at establishing a state of comfort has distanced us so greatly from the demands of survival in a harsh natural world that this basic message of plenty seems trivial. Also weakening the primordial primordial meaning of ornament is the fact 16

 Nathanael West, Miss West, Miss Lonelyhearts & Day of the Locust. New Locust. New Directions Publishing Corp., New York. 1969 edition, thirty-second reprint. 31. 17 Gombrich comes close to saying this in his The Sense of Order : “If these tendencies did not have a strong survival value they would not have come to form part of our organic heritage.” 18  Ornament may have been the first of all the arts, but it is possible that something approximating music might have been practiced before ornament, thus I limit to ‘visual’ arts. Adolf Loos will actually describe ornament as the first art, as will w ill be discussed in chapter 6.

 

10

 

that today it has become less personal; rarely do we weave our own decorative patterns in our clothes or carve enrichments into our own tools, 19 the first ‘primitive’ ornament was undoubtedly user-executed, or at least, the receiving individual was much closer to the means of production. The complex labor-exchange economy has created an entire class of people within society that create ornaments for others, architects architects being part of that that class. Despite fundamen fundamental tal changes in  production the message of ornament as a sign of plenty or success is still understood by the general populace. Architectural hist historian orian George E. Thomas puts it well wit withh a 19th  century example: Ornament, far from being inimicable to the values of industrial America, as postSiegfried Giedion critics have argued, was desirable as an affirmation of American economic success. In [architect Frank Furness’s father] Dr. Furness’s phras phrase, e, ornament 20  produced a “cheering effect... Be it ever so bad, it hints of plenty.”   Observing the then-common ornamental flourishes of garlands and cornucopias exploding with fruit, ‘hints’ might have bbeen een a gentle understatement. While that is a 19th  century example selected because it was a non-architect making the observation, today ornamental displays are still associated with plenty and success, sometimes taken to unsettling extremes.21  A cheering message message of plenty is a reassuring, comfortin comfortingg one. It would seem in innocent nocent enough, but it raises extremely sensitive moral and political issues that have dogged the ornament question – plenty for whom? How can resources be used to ornament buildings when there is such a difference in quality of life between classes in society? Complexity and Contradiction and  Learning from Las Vegas, Vegas, and  and indeed the failure of the Modern Movement to solve any social  problems whatsoever have hopefully made it clear that these problems are not for the architect. The message of plenty also raises an important question about the role of architecture itself: should architecture be something something that comforts or challenges? challenges? Alberti was fairly clear about this

19

 Although sometimes we do, for example: home-knit scarves and sweaters, or the custom paint-jobs of car hot-rodding. Generally, ornament is much less personal in an industrial societ society, y, but these examples show how important it can be for various social purposes, and how it is far from a dead art. 20  George E. Thomas “Frank Furness: The Flowering of an American Architecture”, Architecture”, Frank  Frank Furness: The Complete Works.  Works.  Princeton Architectural Architectural Press, Press, Inc. New York, 1996 revised edition. edition. 43. 21  Recently a successful Chinese businessman built himself a large mansion that is nearly an exact copy of a French chateau. Nothing says “I have arrived” like a heavily-ornamented heavily-ornamented stone building. The evidence of human craftsmanship shows your ability to dominate others in a way abstract form or a machine aesthetic can never duplicate.

 

 

11

in the introduction to his treatise: “[of all the arts] architecture, if you think the matter over carefully, gives comfort and the greatest pleasure to mankind, to individual and community alike”.22  But, generally speakin speaking, g, much contemporary architecture is no nott concerned with the  basic, primordial comforting message of ornament. Perhaps for some special buildings this is appropriate. Great arbiter of contemporary taste H Herbert erbert Muschamp put it best: “contemporary architecture is meant to be enjoyed. The experience differs from the reassuring pleasure of comfort food, however. It is more akin to eating sushi for the first time and discovering that you like it. The sensation is intensified by defying the instinctual fear of the unknown.” “Arousing conflict is one of the social functions architecture performs.” 23   The comfort food-sushi analogy introduces possibly the most appropriate of all the ‘mischievous analogies’ applied to architecture, the gastronomic analogy, as best elaborated by Peter Collins. 24  Sushi is is quite  quite enjoyable, but for everybody other than architecture critics who visit the building only once, a reliance on initial effect is a sore oversight as the building must stand for at least several years; the ‘shock’ of the unique becomes something people must live with. 25  August Perret had it right; buildings should be banal – but in a good sense of the word, not the banality of ‘ugly and ordinary.’ One of ornament’s almost in innumerable numerable useful qualiti qualities es is that it aids greatly in sustaining sustaining the appeal of a buildin buildingg beyond tthe he initial discovery.

Noted 19th  century

ornamentalist Christopher Dresser commented rather quaintly, but probably correctly, on how exposure time is a factor in the appreciation of ornament: It is not sufficient thatsociety ornament be not pleasing firstthat viewed, it must give or lasting satisfaction. In human we do hhastily astilywhen conclude he is the best man, even a good man, because he is most pleasing at first; an intimate and prolonged acquaintance may be necessary in order that a right opinion be formed, and that man we judge best 22

 Alberti, 3.  Herbert Muschamp, New York Times articles on 12/18/2002 and 5/18/2003, respectively. 24  John Summerson, Heavenly Summerson, Heavenly Mansions and Other Essays. Essays. W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1998 edition. edition. 1750-1950. “The Mischevious Analogy” 195. and Peter Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture: 1750-1950. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, 1998 edition. “The Gastronomic Analogy” 167. 25  The practice of glossy magazine photography helps contribute to the ‘one look’ or ‘shock value’ effect. Architects should attempt to emulate emulate lived experience, not small color photo prints. Peter Collins puts it: “This paucity of detailing, …[is] not of course readily apparent in photographs, and can only be appreciated when one actually visits a recent building. But it is very evident that a world of difference exists between 23

small-scale of,latter say, the Chase-Manhattan in New and the building itself, for the former lookphotographs so rich and the so barren and empty;Bank and there canYork be few visitors, even devoted admirers of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, who have not nostalgically compared the opulence of the various nineteenth century banks surrounding it with the bleakness of its own details, and regretted that the sincere expression of sculpture and materials has not provided something more substantial to caress the eye.” (251 Changing Ideals) Ideals)

 

12

 

whose character stands the test of intimacy, and whose company is more pleasurable the longer it is continued. continued. It is so wi with th ornament.26   If the entire building is the ornament no further discoveries are possible after the first look, the ‘acquaintance’ is fully made and there is little reason for the observer to pause and engage the  building with their eye again. Some might say that the changes of the light during the day are enough to enrich the experience of a building, which may be true in some cases, but seeing changing light reflecting from ornament doubles the enrichment. We are, after all, social creatures. We enj enjoy oy each other’s company. Ornament that makes manifest the work of the human hand gives a permanent sign of a supportive social  presence. If no people are immediately present, at least the ornament is there and delivers a cheering sign of of presence. Vitruvius opened book VI with with an anecdote: “It iiss related of the Socratic philosopher Aristippus that, being shipwrecked and cast ashore on the coast of the Rhodians, he observed geometrical figures drawn thereon, and cried out to his companions: “Let us be of good cheer, for I see the traces of man.” 27  Nearly all patterned architectural ornament involves simple geometric geometric figures. Hugo’s observation that ‘the bu building ilding became a polyhedron’ shows how the scale of the sign of human interaction interaction with the building was increasing. Buildings can either provide multiple signs of presence with ornament, or a single sign in their entire form. The danger is a return to the pre-Miesian ‘more is more’ philosophy, but simply put: not only is ‘less a bore,’ but more really is more. is more. Jane Jacobs began her The Death and Life of Great  American Cities with Cities with a selection from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: “…more complex and intense intellectual efforts mean a fuller and richer life. They mean more life. Life is an end iinn itself, and the only question as to whether it is worth living is whether you have enough of it.” 28  Ornament, like all the other useless arts, is one of those things which provide a full and rich tapestry for life

26

 Christopher Dresser, The Artd of Design Design. . American Foundation, Watkins Glen, New York, 1977. Originally printed printe byDecorative Day and Son, London, 1862. 5.Life Foundation,  Vitruvius, The Ten Books On Architecture, Architecture, trans. Morris Hicky Morgan. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1960 edition. 167, Book VI V I Introduction. 28  The consideration of ‘life is an end in itself’ might be problematic, but very few would object to having a richer and full life.

27

 

 

13

to exist upon, and there can never be ‘enough.’ 29  The very real and natural budget that the client allows can become deciding factor for where the ‘enough’ occurs. The common man has always seemed to have a penchant for some variable quantity of ornament, but within the western architectural discourse, at least two distinct peaks and valleys can be observed in architectural theory directly related  to  to feelings about ornamental profusion.30  These high and low tides show that a measure of discipline might be appropriate in ornament; although architects ought to act with a surety that their sense of appropriateness is based more on  public sentiment or desire than their own theoretical agenda. Or as Sullivan put it, to “interpret and initiate!”31 not create and impose. Inevitably, any stance on ornament needs to define what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ornament. Rather curious distinct distinctions ions have been made in the past based on differing differing geometries, ‘truthfulness’ of representation, style, or even the psychological state of the worker during  production. This thesis will make the distinction between good and bad based on how well the ornament accomplishes its task: does it communicate its semantic or tectonic message in a way that it is likely an average observer observer will appreciate? And, equally significant, significant, does it reveal the  primordial nature of ornament: an enriching action of the human hand during a state of plenty? The resolution of the hand versus the machine dilemma is obviously a major issue, and will be fully discussed in the body body of the paper. For now, it will be said that orn ornament ament that takes needless steps to eliminate the traces of the human hand from the final product, therefore making less evident the human involvement involvement with the building, building, is ‘bad’ ornament ornament.. This would seem to bbee obvious, but it is astounding how much hand work often goes into producing a machine aesthetic, such as in the careful grinding down of welds for a cleaner ‘look.’

29

 Gombrich, 17. “…there can never be too much love and sacrifice expended on respect and veneration.”  This will be a theme discussed in in chapters 4-6. 18th century writers such as J.F. Blondel, Boullee, Ledoux, and Le Camus de Mézières all write about the decadence of the Rococo and Baroque manners. 30

th

Much Corbusier, of their vocabulary and as arguments areagainst repeated verbatim by early writers such as Loos, and Gropius they argue thealmost ornamental profusion of20 the  century late 19th century. 31  Louis Sullivan, Kindergarten Sullivan, Kindergarten Chats. Chats. 138: “…the architect is a product  of  of a social body, a product of our civilization. …So we approach him from two sides – as a product and as an agency; so of course I come at once to his true function, namely the double one: TO INTERPRET AND TO INITIATE!” The diffi difficulty, culty, of of course, is in the interpretation.

 

14

 

Ornament is often criticized criticized as a kind of of aesthetic frippery. Aesthetic concerns are ooff course apparent in all ornament, but to dwell too much on the superficial appearance ignores the significance of the work work present in the ornament. Foremost, ornament is surplus labor expended with the belief that the psychological return is worth the investment, it is a celebration of building and our social meanings, meanings, if we choose to express those meanings on our buildi buildings. ngs. Inevitable aesthetics will modify the outward appearance, but the core meaning is always present. Ornament fundamentally means that somebody made it, and it is assumed that at a basic level, we have a respect for each other’s labors. There is something significant about human labor, and in architecture, ornament is the  best way to represent that labor. Abbot Suger and Alberti were well aware of this feature of ornament, but Ruskin put it most eloquently with his lamp of sacrifice, “…the spirit which offers for such work precious things, simply because they are precious; not as being necessary to the  building, but as an offering, surrendering, and sacrifice of what to ourselves is desirable”32  With finite mortal time, and even less time available once the basic needs of life are satisfied, sacrificing precious labor to an object via ornamentation is the surest sign of meaningful significance. It is obviou obviouss in any build building ing that human lab labor or was involved aatt some point, but abstract form conveys the message weakly; all buildings must have form, not all buildings must have ornament. It is absolutely essential th that at buildings have form and structure, structure, but ornament is not essential, its presence presence shows intent of significance. significance. Perhaps there exists only one ppowerful owerful example of pure forms making evident tremendous labor: the Egypti Egyptian an pyramids. The labor apparent in their construction is almost terrifying, especially when one considers how each block was cut with hand tools and pulled into place by dozens of people, yet there is no ornament  present. Modern form alone has never achiev achieved ed the same effect. The story of ornament is in many ways the story of two ideas at odds with one another: rationalism and romanticism. Rationalism is useful for w working orking out programs, forms, and structure, but not so useful for ornamen ornament.t. The problem wit withh rationalism is tthat hat somewhere, a hypocrisy must occur: one must at some point make an irrational stop in reasoning or realize that 32

Lamps, 10.  Ruskin, The Seven Lamps,

 

 

15

the premises being ‘rationally’ ‘rationally’ argued are not really based in any ‘reason’ ‘reason’ at all. If rationalism is carried out to its logical extreme, we end up with the work of the engineer, not a healthy situation for ornament or architecture. Maybe architects today are doing the best they can with ornament; it is quite possible society no longer sees buildings as significant enough to merit the investment – and architects might be partly to blame for this. this. But there are enough signs to suggest suggest that the question of of ornament needs thorough attention, it has much to promise as an invigorating force for architecture.

 

16

 

3. The Use of Ornament: Vitruvius to the Renaissance Writers__________________ 1. Vitruvius 

In De In  De Architectura Arc hitectura,, written about 25 B.C., Vitruvius uses the term ‘ornament’ or its two close variants, adornment and ornamental, 26 times.33  Decoration or decorative appear 16 times. Neither term receives explicit definition and both see use describing twodimensional (paintings, frescos) and three-dimensional (sculptural) applications to  buildings. With the chapter titles “The Ornaments of the Orders” contrasted with “…on the Decoration of Dining Rooms”, ornament begins to acquire its more ‘architectural’ association. Worse, ‘decoration’ appears multiple times times referring to stage sets in a section on theater design.34  However, for Vitruvius a strict division between exterior and interior does not exist for either word, he refers to an “ornamental entablature”, and “busts of ancestors with their ornaments” at interior situations, and decoration at occasional exterior instances.35  Decoration is also used to describe exterior roof applications, but ornament is also used in such a way.36  Regrettably, Vitruvius is not  perfectly disciplined with his use of the words. In his defense, he humbly requested of Caesar …that if anything is set set forth with too lit little tle grammatical rule, it may be pardoned. pardoned. For it is not as a very great philosopher, nor as an eloquent rhetorician, nor as a grammarian trained in the highest principles of his art, that I have striven to write this work.37  

33

 When tallying words, the issue of translation translation becomes esse essential. ntial. The text used is Vitruvius, The Ten  Books On Architecture, Architecture, trans. Morris Hicky Morgan. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1960 edition. Based on the translator’s notes, Morgan attempted to retain Vitruvius’s awkward original style as closely as  possible. Because the English English for these two terms terms is so close to the Latin, the important assumption assumption is made that ornamentum ornamentum and  and decorationem decorationem would  would be translated directly into their English equivalents. 34  Book V, Chapt VI. This fits one of the sub-definitions for decoration in the OED. “2. That which decorates or adorns; an ornament, embellishment; esp. esp. an  an ornament temporarily put up on some special 35 occasion; formerly used (after theVFrench) on and the stage.”  Ornamental entablature: Book chapterofI, scenery 136. Busts ornaments: Book VI chapter II, 178. Exterior sculptural decoration: Book VII introduction, 199. 36  Exterior roof decorations: Book VII chapter V, 212. Ornament describes lion’s head roof applications on the same page. 37  Vitruvius, 13. Book I chapter I.

 

 

17

Despite some interchangeability of terms, interesting observations can be made. The often repeated phrases “entablatures and their ornaments” or “architraves and their ornaments” show that an important use of ornament was as a distinguishing feature for the orders, which is appropriate considering the literal ‘to bring into being an order’ nature of the word. For the Doric temple, traditional timber-frame elements evolved into ornament: In accordance with these [timber frame roof] details, and starting from carpenter’s work, artists in building temples of stone imitated those arrangements in their sculptures,  believing that they must follow those inventions. So it was that some ancient carpenters, engaged in building somewhere or other, after laying the tie-beams so that they projected form the inside to the outside of the walls, closed up the space between the beams, and above them ornamented the coronae and gables with carpentry work of beauty greater than usual; then they cut off the projecting ends of the beams, bringing them into line and flush with the face of the walls; next, as this had an ugly look to them, they fastened  boards, shaped as triglyphs are now made, on the ends of the beams, where they had been cut off inbeing front,concealed, and painted themnot withoffend blue wax thatHence the cutting offinofimitation the ends of  beams, would the so eye. it was of the the arrangement of the tie-beams that men began to employ, in Doric buildings, the device of triglyphs and the metopes between the beams. 38 

It seems that in this case ornament is a simple attempt to avoid the ugliness of ‘raw’ construction and please the eye, thus achieving the decorum requisite for a temple to the gods. On the surface it appears to be a tectonic-based ornament, but the fact that Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian temples all had the exact same timber roof structure but different representational tectonic ornament on their entablatures suggests that something more than an expression of construction was being made present. The system of ornament for the orders was a convention to engender the temple in the appropriate manner for the god it was associated with; the tectonics, when it came to Ionic temples, were manipulated into a more feminine character. …in the [Ionic] capital they placed the volutes, hanging down at the right and the left like curly ringlets, and ornamented its front with cymatia and with festoons of fruit arranged in place of hair, while they brought the flutes down the whole shaft, falling like the folds in the robes worn worn by matrons. Thus in the invention of the two differen differentt kinds of

38

 Vitruvius, 107. Book IV chapter II. “On the Ornaments of the Orders”

 

18

 

columns, they borrowed manly beauty, naked and unadorned, for the one, and for the other delicacy, adornment, and proportions characteristic of women.39 

Interestingly, the Doric column is not always unadorned if fluting is considered ornament,40 what Vitruvius means is relatively relatively unadorned  unadorned as compared to the Ionic. With the large ornamental triglyphs representing heavy beams, tectonics played a greater role in the Doric; it may be that the beam-ends are associated with a more masculine quality – raw, big, and rough structure. But tectonic ornament – dentils dentils representing small rafters  – are also a key featur featuree of the Ionic order. The dentils were made to have a more dainty or feminine appearance than heavy, bold triglyphs. When discussing propriety, Vitruvius Vitruvius  puts it thusly: The temples of Minerva, Mars, and Hercules, will be Doric, since the virile strength of these gods makes daintiness daintiness entirely inapp inappropriate ropriate to their houses. houses. In temples to Venus, Flora, Proserpine, and these they Nymphs, the divinities Corinthianand order be found to have peculiar significance, because are delicate so will its rather slender outlines, its flowers, leaves, and ornamental volu volutes tes will lend propriety where it iiss due. The construction of temples of the Ionic order to Juno, Diana, Father Bacchus, and the other gods of that kind, will be in keeping with the middle position which they hold; for the  building of such will be an appropriate combination of the severity of Doric and the delicacy of the Corinthian.41  

The ancients faced a need to engender their temples to suit their various gods, and ornament served this purpose for them. The tectonic ornament was manipulated to support the message of the semantic ornament, the sculptures in the tympanum would make absolutely evident what the gender of the god associated with the temple was. As well as serving as fine-tuning for mythological associations, ornament communicated political and historical facts of the real world: A wide knowledge of history is requisite because, among the ornamental parts of an architect’s design for a work, there are many the underlying idea of whose employment he should be able to explain to enquirers.42  

39

 Vitruvius, 104. Book IV chapter I.  Doric columns with fluting introduces the idea of architectural cross-dressing with males wearing matronly robes. 41  Vitruvius, 15. Book I chapter II. 42  Vitruvius, 6. Book I chapter I.

40

 

 

19

Vitruvius goes on to describe the story of the Caryatids, an example of representational semantic ornament being used as a structural device to increase its didactic message. Describing a similar monument commemorating a defeat of the Persians, the intent of the ornament is frankly nationalistic: …they set effigies of the prisoners arrayed in barbarian costume and holding up the roof, their pride punished by this deserved affront, that enemies might tremble for fear of the effects of their courage, and that their own people, looking upon this ensemble of their valour and encouraged by the glory of it, might be ready to defend their own independence.43  

For Vitruvius, ornament was primarily semantic and associational based within a continuing tradition. The long line of using nature and reason as justification for ornamental propriety was initiated by Vitruvius in his justification of the details of entablatures and his rejection of ‘decadent’ fresco painting of his day. Consider two of his stances; the first on the conventions of tectonic dentil and mutule ornaments, the second on semantic fresco scenes: …in Greek works nobody ever put dentils under mutules, as it is impossible that common rafters should be underneath prin principle ciple rafters. Therefore, if that wh which ich in the ori original ginal must be placed above the principle rafters, is put in copy below them, the result will be a work constructed on false principles. …the ancients held that what could not happen in the original would have no valid reason for existence in the copy. For in all their works they proceeded on definite principles of fitness and in ways derived from the truth of 44  Nature. Thus they perfection, only those things which, if challenged, can be explained onreached the grounds of truth.approving   We now have fresco paintings of monstrosities, rather than truthful representations of definite things. …Yet when people see these frauds, they find no fault with them but are on the contrary delighted, and do not care whether any of them can exist or not. …if we give our approval to pictures of things which can have no reason for existence in actual fact, we shall be voluntarily associating ourselves with those communities which are  believed to be unintelligent unintelligent on account of jus justt such defects.45 

These are Vitruvius’s means of gauging appropriateness for ornament. Every writer who ever appeals to a ‘truthfulness of representation’ argument will in some way echo these

43

 Vitruvius, 7. Book I chapter I.  Vitruvius, 108-109. Book IV chapter III. 45  Vitruvius, 211-212. Book VII chapter V. 44

 

20

 

 passages.46  He can be classified as semi-rational; though Vitruvius makes some distinctions of truth and falsity he does not take rationalism to its logical extremes of asking: “Why are triglyphs present on the gabled end of the temple, should not heavy  beams only cross the short span?” or “there are no triglyphs on o n a Ionic temple, yet it has the same timber trusses as a Doric temple – is this false representation?” or, most fundamentally of all: “Is there not a falseness in this simulation? Why are we imitating timber devices in stone? What about the nature of the materials?” materials?” Vitruvius’s inability to ask these questions places him as primarily an associationist working within a strong tradition, tempered with a measure of rationalism. Though some of the ornament used was from a rational tectonic origin origin,, its conventionalization allowed it to be harnessed for the semantic task of association; the techne was as yet servant for the eidos eidos.. Before moving on to Alberti, there remain a few small notes to be made about Vitruvius that can be connected to later later issues relating ttoo ornament. Firstly, though the ornaments of the orders are within the literal definition of the word ‘ornament,’ the additional beautifying connotation receives strength when Vitruvius declares that the arrangement of the elements of a farmhouse are more for “keeping the produce in good condition than for ornamental beauty.”47  Alberti will come very near to equating ornament with beauty. Secondly, Vitruvius notes that: A house in town obviously calls for one form of construction; that into which stream the  products of country estates requires another; this will not be the same in the case of money-lenders and still different for the opulent and luxurious; for the powers under whose deliberations the commonwealth is guided dwellings are to be provided according to their special needs: and, in a word, the proper form of economy must be observed in  building houses houses for each and every class.48  

‘Opulent and luxurious’ are not a specific mention of ornament, but the idea that ornament is the visible way of declaring a building’s status in society will be continually 46

 Gombrich, in the course of his chapter “Decoration: Theory and Practice” uses the Vitruvian appeal to truthful representation as a theme. 47  Vitruvius, 182. Book VI chapter V. 48  Vitruvius, 16. Book I chapter II. Also, Book VI chapter V’s title: “How The Rooms Should Be Suited To The Station Of The Owner”

 

 

21

referred back to in the discourse until the onset of the Modern Movement. Lastly, it is worth noting that the matter of proportions take on a mystical, sacred nature for many Renaissance writers. But Vitruvius says that proportions are often manipulated for the  practical purpose of exaggerating exagger ating ornament: The frieze, above the architrave, is one fourth less high than the architrave, but if there are to be reliefs upon it, it is one fourth higher than the architrave, so that the sculptures may be more imposing.49  

And even more interestingly, a piece of ornament, a triglyph, can serve as an ordering module for the entire design: In the case of Temples, symmetry may be calculated from the thickness of a column, from a triglyph, or even a module…50  

Using an ornament to order a building architecturally is an important idea that will be  

returned to during the Modern Movement. 2. Abbot Suger 

The only piece of the discourse that we have for the millennia and a half between Vitruvius and Alberti comes from the hand of Abbot Suger, c. 1140. While not technically an architect, the profession as we understand it today did not yet exist, so his view of ornament is probably about as close as we can come to a grasp of the medieval understanding of the subject.51  

Suger found himself in a position of leadership in a prosperous diocese facing the

question of how best to express faith in god. The ephemeral (in time) act of sacrificing

49

 Vitruvius, 94. Book III chapter V.  Vitruvius, 14. Book I chapter III. ‘symmetry’ for Vitruvius does not mean the modern idea of symmetry,  but a proportional relationship throughout throughout the work. 51  Panofsky has this to say on the authorship of design at St. Denis: “To what extent he [Suger] was responsible or co-responsible for the very design of his structures is for others to decide. But it would seem 50

that very little done without at least active participation. That he wanted selectedit,and individual craftsmen, thatwas he ordered a mosaic for ahis place where apparently nobody andinvited that hethe devised the iconography of his windows, crucifixes and altar panels is attested by his own words, but also an idea such as the transformation of a Roman porphyry vase into an eagle suggests a whim of the abbot rather than the invention of a professional goldsmith.” Abbot Suger, On the Abbey Church of Saint Denis and its Art Treasures, trans. Treasures,  trans. Erwin Panofsky. Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey, 1979. 36.

 

22

 

 bulls before the temple was no longer practiced; so more static acts of sacrifice were carried out: construction and ornament.52  To put itit simply: for Suger, god’s good graces allowed abundance for the people, so it was fitting that worshippers should express their thanks to god by putting their abundance back to whence they received it by building a church. The size and ornaments of the church became the manifestation of a god-given  prosperity.53  The built act of worship then develops into a competition between cities to see who loves god most by building the largest and most ornamented church. 54  It was  particularly important fo forr Suger to be able to compare his abbey’s a bbey’s ornaments with those of Haggia Sophia; for St. Denis’s to surpass all rivals would show the greatest devotion to the almighty.55  Suger does not discuss it, but the alternative to investing surplus labors in in the church would be to let the general populace spend their fruits on themselves; which according to Suger’s reasoning would be seen as an ungrateful affront to god, who allowed the fruits in the first place. To glorify a church with iconography seems a natural thing to do, but Suger was actually breaking fundamental rules of the time. Panofsky provides a selection from the contemporaneous St. Bernard to show the conflict of belief between new and old guard: And further in the cloisters, under the eyes of the brethren engaged in reading, what  business has there thats.ridiculous monstrosity, that Those amazing mis-shapen shapeliness and shapely mis-shapenness. mis-shapennes Those unclean monkeys? fierce lions? Thos Those e monstrous 52

 The ancient practice of ornamenting the frieze with the skulls of bulls or goats shows an attempt to memorialize the brief act of sacrifice by rendering rendering the act of the sacrifice permanent in stone. Karsten Harries provides an illustration of this, The Ethical Function of Architecture, 124. 53  Suger, 43: ‘XXIV Of the Church’s Ornament’ “Having assigned these increases of the revenue in this manner, we turned our hand to the memorable construction of buildings, so that by this thanks might be given to Almighty God by us as well as by our successors…” and 91: “Leaning on God’s inestimable counsel and irrefragable aid, we proceeded with this so great and so sumptuous work to such an extent that, while at first, expending little, we lacked much, afterwards, expending much, we lacked nothing at all and even confessed in our abundance: Our sufficiency is of God ..”” 54  An objective look at the competition of church building will not see it as who loves God the most, but a measure of relative levels of prosperity and size of population. Suger would probably see the difference of 55 relative prosperity as a sign God’s favor, which canand, be won by great building a church.  Suger,levels 65. “Iofused to converse withof travelers from Jerusalem to my delight, to learn from those to whom the treasures of Constantinople and the ornaments of Hagia Sophia had been accessible, whether the things here could claim some value in comparison wit withh those there. When they acknowledged that these here were the more important ones… [remarks about fear of violent jealousy from the Greeks and Latins]”

 

 

23

centaurs? [several more examples of whimsical sculptures given] …on all sides there appears so rich and so amazing a variety of forms that it is more delightful to read the marbles than the manuscripts, and to spend the whole day in admiring these things, piece  by piece, rather than in meditating meditating on the Law Divine.56  

Ornament is a powerful medium, and Saint Bernard saw it as a distraction from his pious mission of life. Suger defends his pro-ornament position: The detractors also object that a saintly mind, a pure heart, a faithful intention ought to suffice for this sacred function; and we, too, explicitly and especially affirm that it is these principally that matter. [But] we profess that we must do homage also through the outward ornaments… with all inner purity and with all outward splendor.57  

For Suger, ornament is an extension of , and an aid to worship. to worship. Extension of by the labor made manifest by workmanship or rich materials (purchased by the labors of the flock), and an aid to by generally glorifying the proceedings of worship and providing  pictographic aids for the peasantry to have explained to them (i.e., the building is the  book). Panofsky puts it so: “Suger had the good fortune to discover… a Christian  philosophy that per permitted mitted him to greet material beauty as a vehicle of o f spiritual beatitude bea titude instead of forcing him to flee from it as though from temptation; and to conceive of the moral as well as the physical universe, not as a monochrome in black and white but as a harmony of many colors.”58  Saint Bernard’s fear of ornament would fall under what James Trilling has called ‘kosmophobia,’ a genuine, real fear that shows how incredibly  powerful ornament can be when it is felt to conflict with important life-values. Suger embarks on quite detailed descriptions of the semantic ornaments of the church, but unfortunately says very little of the Gothic tectonic details which will fascinate later architects. In fact, much of the ‘ornament’ he describes iiss not actually architectural, but free objects detached from the building, the apparatus of Christian worship – candelabras, cups, and so forth. Ornaments that could be called ‘architectural’ include gilt panels, mosaics, windows, and fixed altar pieces, all included in chapters 56

 Suger, 25. Quoted from Panofsky introduction.  Suger, 67. 58  Suger, 26. Panofsky introduction. 57

 

24

 

following ‘Of the Church’s Ornaments’. The closest Suger comes to describing nonsemantic ornaments are as follows: We also committed ourselves richly to elaborate the tower[s] and the upper crenellations of the front, both for beauty of the church, and, should the circumstances require it, for  practical purposes.59 [God’s hand] allowed that whole magnificent building [to reach completion] in three years and three months, from the crypt below to the summit of the vaults above, elaborated with the variety of so many arches and columns…60  

The detailing of the elaborating columns goes unexplained, but the structure receives a stamp of symbolism; twelve primary columns representing the twelve apostles, and “secondarily, as many columns in the side-aisles signifying the number of minor Prophets, according to the Apostle who buildeth spiritually.” 61  The ornament Suger dwells on by far the most is that of precious metals and gems. He seems to have viewed it as the concentrated labors of the devout flock made manifest in the most precious form available of the earth. Panofsky has observed that for Suger, the psychological effect of viewing such resplendent work was intensely religious: …the loveliness of the many-colored stones has called me away from external cares, and worthy meditation has induced me to reflect, transferring that which is material to that which is immaterial,… then it seems to me that I see myself dwelling, as it were, in some strange region of the universe which neither exists entirely in the slime of the earth nor entirely in the purity of Heaven… I can be transported from this inferior to that higher world in an anagogical manner.62  

For Suger, ornament could bring man closer to god.

3. Leone Battista Alberti

Writing the first ‘modern’ text on architecture, Alberti shows a similarity to Suger in that he recognizes ornament as significant as an investment of human labor, both of the intellect and the hand. After a millennium and a half social changes had rendered the Vitruvian prescriptions for propriety obsolete, so Alberti, wishing to return to the classic 59

 Suger, 47.  Suger, 50. 61  Suger, 105. 62  Suger, 21, quoted from Panofsky introduction. 60

 

 

25

language, is forced to invent a new system of ornamental propriety reasoned on what he considers to be the ideal social hierarchy. But beyond the visual establishment of social relationships, ornamented buildings are also seen as valuable monuments of civic improvement. Lastly, Alberti is the first to briefly consider an important psychological question concerning ornament. Vitruvius uses the term ‘ornament’ relatively sparingly in his text. He never refers to an entire capital as an ornament, but parts of the Ionic and Corinthian capitals are. An entire column is never referred to as ornament, but sculptural caryatids are. The largest architectural element Vitruvius refers to as ornament was an entablature, but he only allowed himself to do this once; it may have been an accidental lapse in judgment as he was much more comfortable with the phrase ‘architrave and its ornaments.’ With Alberti’s c. 1450 De 1450 De re Aedificatoria,63 not only is the word ‘ornament’ used much more liberally, but something interesting happens that begins a trend in an escalation of the scale of what architects call ‘ornament.’ For Vitruvius, there were “The Ornaments of the Orders,” but for Alberti the orders are are the  the ornaments of architecture: “In the whole art of building the column is the principal ornament without any doubt.”64  Because all the accoutrements of classical architecture continued to be replicated, physically little changed, but the concept of ornament dramatically increased in scale. Alberti was attempting to establish a new order of building; a glorious resurrection of enlightened ancient Rome which scholars were just beginning to re-discover and feel great admiration for. The column was the great symbol of classical architecture; if the new order was to  be a revival of classic glory then Alber Alberti’s ti’s use of the column as an ornament ornamen t perfectly fits the literal meaning of the word. 63

 The text used is: Leon Battista Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books, Books , trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavernor. Tavernor. MIT Press, Cambridge Cambridge Massachusetts, Massachusetts, 1988. The ornament/decoration ornament/decoration word translation question of this book feels safe, Rykwert, Leach and Tavernor note in the introduction: “As far as English usage would allow, we have attempted to make this a literal translation.” 64  Alberti, 183.

 

 

26

 

Regarding the new social conditions, an important change in faith had occurred

which drastically altered ornament’s role for religious religious buildings. The fine distinctions of  propriety demanded by male and female gods in Roman polytheism were no longer necessary under Christian monotheism; ornament no longer had to engender its host  building. In Alberti’s discussion of the orders in books six and seven, the sexed associations of the columns themselves are not explicit explicitly ly mentioned. mentioned.

With their

engendering roles useless, a new set of rules demarcating appropriateness for the ornaments of architecture was required to fit the social conditions of the day and Alberti  produced them in his three chapters on ornament for sacred, sa cred, public, and private bu buildings, ildings, which shall be discussed shortly. It is not only the orders which Alberti considers to be ornament, everything  beyond the rough brick structural walls of building is called ornament: paintings, frescoes, revetment, flooring, sculptures, reliefs, pilasters, and, most interestingly, ornment is typically considered to be additive, but Alberti’s openings – openings.65   Ad ornment windows, niches, doors – are the first negative ornaments. Despite introducing this revolutionary idea of negative ornament, Alberti gives us the first definition of ornament in the discourse, and it is an additive definition: …had ornament been applied by painting and masking anything ugly, or by grooming and polishing the attractive, it would have had the effect of making the displeasing less offensive and the pleasing pleasing more delightful. If this is conceded, ornamen ornamentt may be defined as a form of auxiliary light and complement complement to beauty. From this it follows, I believe, believe, that beauty is some inherent property, to be found suffused all through the body of that which may be called beautiful; whereas ornament, rather than being inherent, has the character of something attached or additional.66 

In a sense, windows, niches, and doors – though physically negative in relation to the wall – are additive desi design gn elements. Openings aside, Alberti’s definition changes the focus of ornament from illustration of an order to the abstract and difficult concept of

65

 Alberti, 180. “Openings are an ornament that gives great delight and dignity to the work…”  Alberti, 156.

66

 

 

27

 beauty. Beauty is something rather vague, “a great and holy matter. …some inherent  property, to be found suffused all through the body of that which may be called  beautiful.”67  Alberti’s concept of beauty will not be fully explained, but it had to do with imitating the order of nature, which was perceived to be beautiful.68  The nature argument is similar to Vitruvius, and will continue in the architectural discourse through to Frank Lloyd Wright. The important item in relation to ornament is that the beautifying connotation of the word is immensely strengthened, and the order-defining element is diminished. Alberti’s new rules of propriety for ornament presented in books six through nine  pick up where Vitruvius left off. Vitruvius indirectly dealt with issues of class and ornament, but Alberti makes the issue explicit. …the temporal ought to concede to the sacred in dignity as far as is reasonable, so in refinement and quantity of ornament, private buildings should allow themselves to be surpassed easily by public ones. …The severest rest restraint raint is called for, in the oornament rnament to 69  private buildings, buildings, therefore, although a certain license license is possible.  

This shows Alberti’s belief that, due to our relatively temporal nature, the individual is not as important as the state or god. 70  Building a palazzo a palazzo more  more ornamented than a church or city hall would be a literal display that the owner believes themselves more significant than their fellow citizens and even the gods; invested labor in ornament is seen almost as

67

 Alberti, 156.  Alberti, 303: “Beauty is a form of sympathy and consonance of the parts within a body, according to definite number, outline, and position, as dictated by concinnitas concinnitas,, the absolute and fundamental rule in  Nature.” Concinnitas appears to be a simplification simplification of Vitruvius’s Order, Arrangement, Symmetry, and Eurythmy – one word for many. 311: “…the faults of ornam ornament ent that must be avoided most of all are are the same as those in the works of Nature, anything that is distorted, stunted, excessive, or deformed in any way. For if in Nature they are condemned and thought monstrous, what would be said of the architect who composes the parts in an unseemly manner?” 163: “The chief ornament in every object is that it should be free of all that is unseemly.” 69  Alberti, 293. 68

70

 Alberti, 193. “…as and of other citizens wealthier, and were tempted toof dignify their city and their own names with kings buildings great size, itgrew seemed disgraceful that the houses mortals should receive higher praise for their beauty than the temples of the gods; soon the stage was reached when even in the humblest of towns King Numa laid out four thousand pounds of silver for the foundations of a single temple. I strongly applaud him for this, because he catered both to the di dignity gnity of the city and to the worship of the gods, to whom we owe everything.”

 

28

 

an extension of worship.71  Site location also had something something to do with propriety in ornament: ...there is a further difference between a townhouse and a villa: the ornament to a town house ought to be far more sober in character, whereas in a villa the allures of license and delight are allowed.72 

It is interesting that the private individual’s luxuriant displays of ornament are accommodated out in the countryside. Though Alberti does not say it, this this can only be  because a country villa is isolated, while in a dense town abutting public and religious  buildings it could be seen as a direct affront aff ront to the social order. Restraining the displays of the wealthy to out in the countryside would make a vulgar competition with the more important institutions less evident to an urban population but allow the wealthy to declare their class and have the the necessary competitive bouts among among themselves. The ‘license’ is an inevitable compromise to allow for human nature. 73  

Alberti’s sense of propriety came from a simple hatred of wonton displays of

wealth for no reason other than the show. This rather sensible argument will be continued by several later writers. He colorfully expounds hi hiss case here: I do not praise Deioces, the famous king of the Medes, who encircled the city of Ecbatana with seven walls distinguished by their colors; some were purple, some blue, some covered with silver, and some even with gold. gold. I also despise Caligula, who had a stable stable of marble and a manger of ivory. All that Nero built was overlaid with gold and adorned with gems. gems. Still more outrageous, E Eliogabalus liogabalus strewed hi hiss pavement with ggold, old, lamenting that he could not use amber. Such ostentations of wealth, wealth, such insanity, is to  be censured: human effort and sweat are invested in something of no particular use nor any role in the construction, which no admiration for its ingenuity can ennoble, nor the charm of invention endorse.74  “The greatest glory in the art of building is to have a good sense of what is appropriate.”75  

71

 Alberti, 194. (of the ornament of temples) “Ornament is never completed: even in a small temple there is always something left over, over, it seems, that could and shoul shouldd be added.” The worship of the divine is a continuous process carried out via the labor in ornament. 72

73 Alberti,

294. Alberti’s final thought: “I therefore conclude that anyone who wants to understand correctly  Alberti, 292. the true and correct ornament of a [private] building must realize that its principal component and generator is not the outlay of wealth but the wealth of ingenuity.” 74  Alberti, 312-313. 75  Alberti, 315.

 

 

29

He attempts to use the tectonic, rational reason “no particular use nor any role in the construction,” but if he were to look at his own ornament, it is obvious that essentially all of it is useless and has no tectonic role. For instance, he says of the ornament of church floors: “I strongly approve of patterning the pavement with musical and geometric lines and shapes, so that the mind may receive stimuli from every side.”76  What Alberti really objects to is the blatant and vulgar display of wealth. In his own day, vill villaa building was the rage, and while he desired to recreate a golden age of Rome, he did not want to see Rome’s most decadent displays repeated in his own time by the aristocratic class. It is a  plea for temperance: Alberti wanted ornament to display what he h e thought the true moral order of society should be: church first, public buildings second, private estates last. His “human effort and sweat” shows a sympathetic recognition of the human investment of labor in ornament, and that the value in that labor should be employed for everyone’s  benefit in the greater institutions, not personal whims of aggrandizement. aggran dizement.77  For Alberti, properly employed ornament had a definite aspect of civic improvement: When you erect a wall or portico of great elegance and adorn it with a door, columns, or roof, good citizens approve and express joy for their own sake, as well as for yours,  because they realize that you have used your your wealth to increase greatly not only only your own 78

honor and glory, but also that of your family, your descendants, and the whole city.  

Considering the treatise as an instrument for classical revivalism aimed at an educated aristocracy, the above passage can be seen as a marketing ‘sell’ promising rewards if you  build in the ‘correct’ style. There is an undoubted attempt to con convince vince present; however, there is also the equally potent idea that ornament makes the building a public work of art

76

 Alberti, 220.  Further recognition of the labor aspect of ornament occurs during a discussion on 163 regarding the  placement of huge huge stones. However, for Alberti Alberti the influence of the intellect intellect in the arrangement arrangement is equally important as the invested labor for the final effect of ornament. 78  Alberti, 4. 77

 

30

 

for all to appreciate and be proud of; wealth is put into labor to create ornament that will last generations and make a building “for the permanent adornment of the city.” 79  

It has already been shown how Alberti understood ornament to be useful for

illustrating social significance (semantics), but he also understood how ornament could show the importance of architectural elements, notably the roof, one of his six basic elements of architecture: Our ancestors then seem to have distinguished themselves here, as elsewhere, in attaching so much importance to the covering that they exhausted almost all their decorative skill in adorning it. For we have seen roofs made of copper, glas glass, s, and gold, and el elegantly egantly decorated with ceilings gilded or coffered in gold, and picked out with sculpted crowns and flowers, and even statues.80  

Whether the ancients ornamented the roof in that particular case just because it was a roof or because it was the roof of a sacred temple is a question of importance (the latter is much more likely), but Alberti is suggesting that important and symbolic architectural elements, such as the roof, deserve ornamentation as an honorific glorification of function. As a scholar, Alberti is thorough in his explanations, leaving few stones unturned. He is the first to attempt an answer for the important psychological question: just why do we find ornament appealing? And he arrived at the following: “The pleasure to be found in objects of great beauty and ornament is produced either by invention and the working of the intellect, or by the hand of the craftsman, or it is imbued naturally in the objects themselves.”81  The third item – the inherent property – will be discarded, but the first two will be vigorously returned to by later writers. For instance, Owen Jones and Christopher Dresser will use the ‘investment of intellect’ approach, while Ruskin will rely heavily on the ‘hand of the craftsman’ approach.

79

 Alberti, 8.  Alberti, 27. 81  Alberti, 159. 80

 

 

31

Two small ornament-related notes can be made about Alberti before moving on to Serlio. First, Alberti makes a comment that foreshadows the romantic extravaganzas that will eventually occur: “Watchtowers provide an excellent ornament, if sited in a suitable  position and built on appropriate lines; if grouped closely together, they make an imposing sight from afar.”82  Such an idea as this will evolve into the ornamental towers applied entirely for visual effect in many styles. Such effect-based use of ornament will  be revolting to the modern mindset. Secondly, another modern objection to ornament will be against its purely applicative nature. Alberti notes that thi thiss is entirely for practical reasons: One particular fault we see committed by incompetent people, is that they have hardly  begun a work when they cover it and cram it with paintings and sculpted statues; as a result these vulnerable items are destroyed before the work has even been completed. The work ought to be constructed naked, and clothed later; let the ornament come last; only then will you have the occasion and opportunity to do it conveniently without any form of hindrance.83  

Alberti effectively laid the idea of ornament that the Modern Movement would react to; a beautifying beautifying covering for the building tied to an expression of class. Ornament was an exercise of the mind and an investment of labor, an “auxiliary light to beauty” which gave pleasure, stimulated the mind, and was a gift for the glorification of the city. Though many of the classical ornamental elements used had distant tectonic origins, tectonic expression in the modern sense is not yet seen as a matter of significance; where rational tectonic arguments occur, they are in defense of keeping the classical language  pure. Perhaps the most interesting point about Alberti, besides the conceptual increase incr ease in scale of ornament, is that he avoids Vitruvius’s sexed nature of the columns, and officially introduces the ‘Italian’ (composite) order. Alberti is never overtly nationalistic,  but nationalist choices will be no stranger stra nger to ornament in the coming centuries. c enturies. Attempts

82

 Alberti, 257.  Alberti, 312.

83

 

32

 

will be made at inventing both French and American classical orders; and nationalism will also justify other stylistic choices of ornament, or the very use of it.

4. Sebastiano Serlio

Written in Latin and lacking illustrations, Alberti’s De Alberti’s De re Aedificatoria initially Aedificatoria initially was fairly inaccessible. Later translated editions would correct the problem with illustrations added  by others, but it was perhaps Serlio’s 1537-1547 The Book of Architecture that most widened the accessibility of classic revivalism by providing extensive illustrations with the text, using the vernacular tongue, and targeting itself at practitioners of all competency levels.84  For ornament, Serlio’s book is in a way a step backwards towards Vitruvius as well as forwards from Alberti. He moves ahead in the the sense that he takes a less didactic stance on the classical rules, allowing greater inventiveness, and backwards in that he strongly re-establishes the classic genders of the orders with prescriptions for modern equivalents of the ancient associations rather than minimizing them as Alberti had. Serlio initially envisioned a treatise of seven total books, but only managed to  publish five during his life. Books one and two teach how to draw, dra w, book three illustrates the great Roman precedents, book four documents “the five orders of building, and their ornaments,”85 and book five discussed temples. The order in which these were actually  published shows their relative levels of importance: 4, then 3, then 1 and 2 together, and finally 5. What is perhaps most famous is that book four (actually the first) begins 84

 The texts used are: Sebastiano Serlio, Sebastiono Serlio on Architecture, trans. Architecture,  trans. Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1996., and Sebastiano Serlio, The Book of  Architecture,, trans. Robert Peake, introduction by A.E. Santaniello.  Architecture Santaniello. Benjamin Bloom, Inc. Publishers,  New York, 1970 of 1611 London edition. editi on. from The introduction book four (the first first produced) states states the intended widereprint audience immediately: (quoted Santaniello’stointroduction) “Benevolent reader, I have prepared some rules of architecture, thinking that not only the more intelligent would comprehend them, but that also those who are less ingenious could understa understand…” nd…” The vernacular tongue, in in the original, was both French and Italian (for books 1, 2, and 6) – doubly increasing the book’s wide influence. 85  Serlio 1611 edition, Book IV “Sebastian Serlius to the Reader”

 

 

33

immediately with all five orders illustrated together in a figure entitled the “Five Manner of Buildings.” The principal classical ornaments of architecture were thus graphically codified together for the first time. On the facing leaf, Serlio immediately describes the ancient associations according to Vitruvius: Doric with male strength, Ionic with matrons or non-belligerent males, and Corinthian for delicate maids.

He then sets about

modernizing the rules for Christian society with a different tack from Alberti: My meaning is, to follow the manner and customs of the Christians, that I (as far as I may) will ascribe holy Buildings to God and to his Saints: and profane buildings, as well as public and private, I will ascribe ascribe to men according to their professions. professions. So say I then, that the Tuscan manner (after my opinion) is fit for strengths, for Gates of Cities, Towns and Castles, places for treasure, munitions and Artillery to keep them in, for prisons, harbors of the sea, and such like things, serving for the wars. 86  

In the chapters continuing after Tuscan, Doric is prescribed for male soldier-saints who shed their blood for Christ or “men of arms, and strong personages”, Ionic is dedicated to “Saints as are of nature either weak or strong”, Corinthian for the “Virgin Mary, or any other Saints that were virgins, or houses… for persons of honest life and conversation”. The origin of the Composite, as it departs from Vitruvius and has no specific associations, requires a bit of explaining from Serlio and yields some interesting insights on ornament. Observing that it appears to be a composition of the Ionic and Corinthian, he offers that since Romans had “triumphed over all those countries…” from which the other orders had originated, “so they might at their pleasures, as commanders over them, set their orders together”.87  As the Pantheon housed various gods from nations subjugated by the Romans, the Composite order was another means of making what was once somebody else’s their own, simultaneously showing Rome’s Imperial greatness in the act of appropriation. Veracity of this is a matter of debate; the Composite, like the Corinthian, might have originated from simple novelty, but if true, it shows ornament in its not uncommon political role – a graphic display of domination much like the 86

 Serlio 1611 edition, Book IV introductory note, “The Author to the Reader”.  Serlio, 1611 edition, Book IV chapter 9, facing page of fol.59.

87

 

 

34

caryatids, but in this case the foreign people’s sacred temple architecture itself is being dominated. Not only the composition of the capital displays the message, but its  placement in the work was also carefully selected; the Roman order’s incumbency above all – as at the Colosseum, as Serlio notes – has important hierarchical symbolism. 88  In the days before eyeglasses, it would have made more sense to put the most elaborate ornament closest to the observer (certain notes in Vitruvius show that items such as this were carefully considered); but with the Composite on top, all the other nations are symbolically bearing the the weight of Rome. This is ornament near its full height of semantic communication. Serlio refrains from prescribing the Composite to any specific  building types, but does provide two fireplace ornaments orna ments in the style. The example of the Colosseum shows how original careful scaling of the less important ornamental elements for visual effect can have great consequences for later arbitrary selections for the sake of antique authority. Looking at Serlio’s lline-up ine-up of the orders [3.1], the Composite has unusually large brackets – they are in the position where triglyphs would occur, but they take a form that could be an extremely over-sized modillion. This is because Serlio uses the Colosseum as his source of authority for the Composite, and on the fourth story, the scale of the corbels was adjusted by the ancient architect to be more in tune with the size of the building and to create a simple rhythm with the slots for the canopy-suspension system of wooden masts – they are not actually triglyphs, dentils, modillions, or brackets at all, but large masonry corbels supporting a  projecting coping and drip edge for a roofless building. Serlio, needing an ancient

88

 Serlio 196 edition, Book III. “Many people ask the reason why the Romans built this edifice of four Orders and did not build it of a single Order like the others: that is, the one in Verona which is of o f Rustic

work theworld one in–Pula which isofthe same. It could bewhom answered that the ancient Romans, as conquerors of theand whole particularly those peoples from the three Orders hadRom theirans, origin – wanted to  put these three types together and and put above them the the Composite Order, the Order which they they invented, to show that that as victors over those peoples they also w wished ished to triumph over their works, arranging them and mixing them at their pleasure. However, leaving this debate aside…” Serlio has a similar discussion discussion in Book IV, chapter 9.

 

 

35

authority, seized upon a particular example where the top entablature had been drastically manipulated to suit the building’s overall proportions. Aware of this problem, but rather than adjust the proportions (and thereby losing the authority of being able to say ‘this is from an antique example’), Serlio suggests that “The architrave, freize and cornice should  be set a long way from f rom the viewer.”89  This is a fairly poor compromise, for if one desired to employ Serlio’s example of Composite on a one-story building, they would by accident have an entablature originally meant to be on an extremely monumental fourstory building.

Palladio will create a completely different interpretation of the

Composite, with dentils dentils of a more traditional size in relation to the Corinthian. Corinthian. The example illustrates some of the finer problems of resolving a rationalist desire for antique authority, and strikes a curious note, as Serlio has little trouble making slight adjustments or even committing fantastic violations of the classical rules in many other examples. 90

  [3.1] Serlio, ‘The Five Styles Styles of Building.’ An attempt at codification of ornament.

89

 Serlio 1996 edition, 364. Book IV, chapter 9.  Serlio 1996 edition, 296. Book IV, chapter 6. 6. He defends an adjustment to a doorway which brea breaks ks classical rules: “I have never actually seen anything like this on an ancient building or found anything written, but Baldassare from Siena – most knowledgeable of antiquities – may perhaps have seen some traces or maybe with his consummate judgment invented this variety, placing triglyphs above the opening  because they bear less less weight and the the corbels, which bear bear the whole weight of the pediment, above the 90

masonry of theby pilastrades. This, in my opinion, o…The pinion,architect preserves the natura natura and is pleasing to thefor eye, and was highly praised Clement the Seventh. could use this and invention not only a door, but also for various ornaments, according to the situation.” situation.” Note his appeal to intellectual and papal authority as support for his invention. For large violations of the classical ‘rules,’ observe many many of his fireplace or  portal drawings. i.e., 299. Perhaps it is just just that for the sacred orders themselves, themselves, Serlio Serlio felt he needed antique authority, but for the less-important building elements allowed himself greater freedom.

 

36

 

Along with adapting the Vitruvian sexed associations for modern use, Serlio stays close to the ancient source by beginning each chapter on an order with the title “Of the [order name] and the ornaments thereof,”91 echoing Vitruvius’s “On the ornaments of the orders” chapter. However, Alberti’s iinfluence nfluence is extremely apparent, as Serlio directly echoes Albertian ornament theory here and there: “It was my initial intention to describe only the ornaments of the five styles of buildings in the fourth book – that is, columns,  pedestals, architraves, friezes, cornices and some different sorts of doors, windows, niches and other similar individual members”92, and the orders are referred to as the “ornaments of architecture”93  at the beginning of chapter nine. Chapter eleven “Of ornaments of pictures within and without the houses” deals with paintings, and chapter 94

twelve provides illustrations for “ornaments and garnishing”   of interior coffered ceilings – which should be observed closely, as some modern structural framing plans and even city plans will bear an uncanny resemblance. 95 Though some differences occur (mainly in Serlio’s inventiveness), Alberti and Serlio have much in common ideologically about ornament.

For instance, Serlio

strengthens an Albertian dictum, stating something very similar to ornament as a ‘gift to the public’: “the commodity and beauty of buildings give utility and contentment to the inhabitants, honor and ornament to a city and pleasure and delight to those who contemplate them.”96  Serlio’s later books, not published during his life, show a very

91

 Serlio 1611 edition, Book IV, chapters 5-9. 5-9. This is not actually Serlio, Serlio, but Robert Peake.  Serlio 1996 edition, 300. Book IV, chapter 5. 93  Serlio 1611 edition, Book IV chapter 9. 94  Serlio 1611 edition, Book IV, chapter 12, Fol.68. Serlio’s “Garnishing” may be the first introduction of 92

95 gastronomic analogy within the context of ornament. the  This will be discussed in detail further on, and has been best shown by Thomas Beeby’s article “The Grammar of Ornament/Ornament as Grammar”, in Ornament  VIA III, ed. Stephan Kiernan.  Kiernan. Philadelphia, PA: Falcon Press, 1977. 96  Serlio, Book III fol. 124v, Quoted from the Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks 1996 translation introduction, introduction, xxxv.

 

 

37

similar stance with Alberti on the use of ornament for a display of the social hierarchy;97  however, Serlio understood that an architect’s livelihood relied upon the patronage of aristocrats, so he allows much more license for garish displays of wealth via ornamentation. Alberti had called watchtowers ornament, and Serlio furthers the idea, calling a church’s campanili ornament.98  But this is now an architectural part of a church, not part of city walls. However, the large ornament is still intended to be decked with smaller ornaments, so nothing is lost in terms of richness from the increase in scale. Translators Vaughn Hart and Peter Hicks make a subtle observation about Serlio; a very symbolic one directly vivifying the primordial meaning of ornament: With their rusticated basements contrasted with Corinthian attics, Serlio’s palace facades in Book IV might be seen to express an ordered progression from the realm of Nature to the various levels of refinement of man’s own character, character, ranging from robust to delicate. delicate. On a Tuscan gate Serlio notes: The ancient Romans thought it good to mix Rustic not only with Doric, but also Ionic, and even Corinthian. Therefore it would not be faul faulty ty to have a mixture of Rustic Rustic with one other style, symbolizing by this partly the work of Nature and partly the work of human skill. The columns banded by Rustic stones, and also the architrave and freize interrupted by the voussoirs, represent the work of Nature, but the capitals, part of the columns and the cornice with the pediment represent the work of the human hand. (fol. 133v)99  

There is nothing like this in Alberti or Palladio, and it gives the highly mannerist compositions where columns are devoured with rusticated blocks a certain poetic sense [3.2-4]. Remembering the primordial message of ornament – an ordering work of the human hand during a momentary escape from the state of nature – we have in Serlio a use of ornament to make more apparent the primordial meaning of ornament itself via contrast of nature’s rough work and man’s refined work. While interesting, and possibly true (the gate is suggested to have antique authority, but Vitruvius does not say anything 97

 Serlio’s Book seven makes this absolutely clear, but Books I-V also have the occasional comment about ornament as an expression of the patron’s wealth: “the elements of utility get transformed into ornament so as to display the artistry and also the wealth of the patron, and sometimes this ornament goes beyond 98 necessity”

BookBook IV chapter 5. campanili would be ornament to the face of the temple because they would  Serlio 1996, V, “These mask the two corners which protrude from the side chapels, and with their underground commodities they would provide habitations for the priests.” 99  Sebastiano Serlio, On Architecture: Volume I, Books I-V of ‘Tutte L’Opere D’Architettura et Prospetiva’ , trans. Vaughn Hart and Peter Hicks. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 19 1996. 96. xxx.

 

38

 

to suggest an intent like this), there are other legitimate means of explaining the stacked hierarchies and mixings of columns – the political: Rome dominates all, the structurally expressive: the most delicate proportions are placed on top because beneath they would appear unsafe, and the practical: the parts of the building immediately at street level should not have fine breakable ornamental work.

Novelty is an equally likely

explanation. Wherever the truth lies; the ornament still remains as a sign of human involvement with the building, with multiple colors of semantic or tectonic meaning; this is not direct and clear communication, but subtle, powerful, emotional suggestion.

[3.2-3.4] Serlio, Rustic gates. Poetic expression of man versus nature, or simple novelty?

With that vague lesson of ornament established, a good final lesson can be learned from Serlio on the opposite end of the spectrum of ornamental communication: how to make intentions absolutely clear. The sexed associations of the orders admittedly rely on a conventionalized system; an observer will not understand the abstracted maleness of Tuscan or Doric versus the femaleness of Corinthian and Ionic unless the two types are  present in buildings adjacent adjac ent to each other, an andd then the observer is directly asked “wh “which ich is masculine and which is feminine?” And even then a correct answer may not be certain without any additional ornaments on the buildings to make the message explicit (such as a female or male statue in the center of the tympanum). With his fireplaces for the Ionic

 

 

39

and Corinthian orders, Serlio makes sure to drive the message of the orders absolutely home by use of sculptural ornament, noting: “…the manner of the Ionic being made after the feminine kind, it is so likewise a material thing that having a chimney to make of that order, we must, as near as we can, make some show of that sex therein…” “…the Corinthian manner had her beginning from a maid, of the town of Corinthia: therefore I have placed a maid here, instead of a column…”100  

Vitruvius would not have approved at all of Serlio’s fantastic winged and four-breasted depictions of the female body, but Serlio does make absolutely evident the intended femaleness of the order – and he uses representational ornament to do so. For the ancient’s temples, the same task would have been achieved by the placement of the  principle deity’s statue at the center of the tympanum. For ornament, Serlio has one foot in the past and the ot other her in the future. Reaching  back to Vitruvius, he re-establishes the conventions of association, but at the same time he shows mannerist inventiveness, flaunting the rigid rules – especially in some of his gate and fireplace drawings. Ornamental devices of rustication, voussoirs, and the classical language turn into the architect’s playground. He notes: “It is not sufficient that the work should be strong, but it must also be made artificially, to please men’s sight.” 101  After he himself had measured monuments of ancient Rome for book three, it must have  been quite apparent app arent that nobody ever followed oone ne absolute absolute set  set of rules anyways, so why not invent something? something? Cautious asides of “as far as I m may” ay” and “after my opinion” are frequently sprinkled throughout the text, showing a far less authoritarian stance than Alberti. What Serlio provides is basically the first easy-reference ornament pattern-book for everything a client of his day might might have needed. The plethora of illustrations makes reading the text itself almost unnecessary.

100

 Serlio, Book IV, chapter seven Fol.43 and chapter eight, Fol.58.  Serlio, Book IV chapter 5, Fol 11.

101

 

40

 

5. Philibert De l’Orme

Philibert de l’Orme’s 1561 Nouvelles 1561 Nouvelles Inventions pour bien bas bastir tir et à petits Fraiz Fraiz and  and his 1567 Le 1567  Le premiere tôme de l’Architecture l’Architecture add  add a few points of significance to the theory of ornament.

First, De l’Orme’s training as a mason made him more sensitive to

straightforward matters of building – tectonics – and therefore, when he invented a new system of French orders, what could be called ttectonic ectonic regional expression begins. But it is not yet modern tectonics, as De l’Orme still bases himself within an associational framework.

Second, Alberti had argued against excessive ornament based on the

symbolism of invested labor for incorrect social purposes, but De l’Orme occasionally argues against excessive ornament merely as a matter of his own taste; but he uses reason reason   in the course of his argument. The new orders are De l’Orme’s attempt to create a national French ornament and are an important example of tectonics taking a supporting role in semantic ornament [3.5]. Architectural historian Anthony Blunt describes De ll’Orme’s ’Orme’s reasoning behind his  proposal as both theoretical and practical.102  All of the orders had local origins; the Romans had invented their own, so why should the French not invent a Gallic order as a fitting expression of national greatness? Nationalism drove the urge to make a new order, but what would determine the form of it? As a rationalist coming from a family of masons, the practical argument comes close to an early form of regionalism based on the available materials and tectonic expression; Blunt explains: …marble being relatively rare in France, most columns had of necessity to be made of stone, and a single long shaft of sto stone ne will not stand the strain strain imposed by the entab entablature lature which it has to support. Stone columns, therefore, have to be built of superimposed drums, and in order to conceal the joins of these drums de l’Orme proposed that the French Order should have a series of decorated bands round the shaft of the column.103  

102

 Anthony Blunt, Philibert Blunt, Philibert de l’Orme. l’Orme. A. Zwemmer Ltd., London. 1958. A discussion of de l’Orme’s order proposal occurs on pages 118-122. 103  Philibert de l’Orme. 119. l’Orme. 119.  Blunt, Philibert  Blunt,

 

 

41

Blunt shows how this is a curious case of architectural re-invention due to De l’Orme’s lack of knowledge of the Greek methods of construction; they built their columns of drums, but did not emphasize the joints apart from a few exceptional cases.

[3.5] De l’Orme, tectonic ornament integrated into traditional system as national expression. From Blunt. 

The important item of note occurs in the relationship between the tectonics and the semantics.

First, the tectonic element in De l’Orme’s invention is subservient to

tradition; he does not actually create a new, sixth, French order, but modifies all of the existing orders with bands to express the noble French stone “as good as marbles brought from Italy”.104  Second, Blunt explains that the bands themselves are seized upon as a means of expressing ideas outside the realm of tectonics: He recommends that in composing these ornaments [the bands] the architect should use decorative features suitable to the country or the person for whom he is working, and he

104

1500-1700. Penguin Books, Ltd., New York, 1980. 86.  Anthony Blunt, Art Blunt, Art and Architecture in France 1500-1700. Penguin

 

42

 

himself employed this principle by introducing for instance the monogram of Catherine de’ Medici in the pilasters in the upper story of the Tuileries...105  

Much akin to how keystones, a tectonic element, might receive important semantic ornaments.

Relationships such as these between tectonic and semantic ornament

increases the significance of both, they are mutually enhancing.  Now for De l’Orme’s anti-ornament comments. Alberti had argued that the Vitruvian triangle is not equilateral, but is weighted more heavily towards the ‘grace/delight/beauty’ side (ornament being the most prominent item on the beauty side of the triangle).106  After all, any vernacular builder or trained engineer can make a sound  building that houses a function adequately. adequ ately. However, in one of his comments De l’Orme weights the triangle away away   from delight (specifically mentioning ornament/decoration) and towards commodity: It would be much better, in my opinion, for the architect to fail in the ornamentation of the columns, in the proportions and the treatment of facades (to which those who  proclaim themselves architects devote the most study) rather than that he should desert  Nature’s excellent rules which concern the comfort, convenience, and advantage of the inhabitants, and not the decoration, beauty, and richness of houses, made only to please the eye, and not for any benefit to the health and life of men.107  

Such a statement lays the germ that grows into Durand equating firmness and commodity with beauty. It also makes the assumption that ornament does not contribute in a real way to the ‘health of life and men’ (Ruskin in his definition of architecture will insist that it does). The inability to quantify ornament’s psychological benefit in terms of square footage towards a specific function is one of its downfalls, but in its unquantifiable nature it finds close kinship with its bearer, architecture itself. 105

 Blunt, Philibert de l’Orme. 120.  Blunt, Philibert l’Orme. 120. Blunt uses ‘decorative features’ features’ to describe what I have cal called led semantic ‘ornament.’ ‘ornament.’ The matter of word choice is important. important. If De l’Orme had explicitly distinguished distinguished  between ‘decoration’ and ‘ornament,’ Blunt would very likely likely have commented commented on it in his his description. The important assumption is made that De l’Orme uses the words about as synonymously as the other writers of this period. Blunt is comfortable using the words synonymously synonymously,, as he refers to the same bandsIntro as decoration in“Of  Art the andthree Architecture in that France France on  onto 87.every form of const  Alberti, 155. to Book 6:in Art condit conditions ions apply construction ruction – that what we construct should be appropriate to use, lasting in structure, and graceful and pleasing in appearance – the first two have been dealt with, and there remains the third, the noblest and most necessary of all.” 107  Art and Architecture in France. 85-86. From De l’Orme’s Le l’Architecture.   Blunt, Art  Blunt, l’Orme’s Le premiere tôme de l’Architecture.  ornamental 106

 

 

 

43

What has been termed ‘selective rationalism’ plays a role in De l’Orme’s attacks

on ornament. Blunt documents another of De l’Orme’s tirades against those who pile up ornament “without reason, proportion, or measure, and more often by mere chance, without being able to say why they did it.”108  Forms of this statement will be echoed by multiple architects taking a rationalist position, including such notables as Laugier, Durand, and Violet-Le-Duc. The fact that architects are responsible for quite a large sum of their client’s money makes it desirable to have a solid reason behind design decisions, and the reason for ornament is often felt to be a weak one. Despite these anti-ornament comments, De l’Orme ends up taking the typical expression of the social hierarchy statement similar to Alberti.109  Although he introduces these fundamental anti-ornament arguments, De l’Orme was a man who truly appreciated sumptuous, richly embellished architecture.110  

6. Andrea Palladio

120 years after Alberti, Andrea Palladio’s 1570 I 1570  I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura dell'Architettura remains  remains within the same school of thought on architectural matters in general but shows some important developments concerning ornament. Like Alberti, Alberti, Palladio states that the

108

l’Architecture.   Blunt, Art and Architecture in France. 86. From De l’Orme’s Le  Blunt, Art l’Orme’s Le premiere tôme de l’Architecture.   Blunt, Art  Blunt,  Art and Architecture in France. 86. “After considering these basic practical matters, Philibert goes on to the question of ornament. This he admits is necessary, but it must above all be applied properly, ‘as is necessary and reasonable’, not merely to give an effect of richness. Generally speaking, he is opposed to richness of either decoration or material, except in the case of a royal palace or a public building to which it is appropriate.” Another contemporary French treati treatise se mentioned in Blunt takes the same line: Jacques Androuet du Cerceau the Elder (1559 book: Livre book: Livre D’Architecture) D’Architecture) “The book presents plans for houses of all sizes, from one suitable to a merchant, to the grandest hotel of a noble family. The smaller houses consist of a single block, usually of only one storey, but with great variety in the elevations. The surface is varied by stone quoins and window surrounds; the openings are of different forms, and the front is often broken by small pavilions containing cabinets cabinets and  and covered by separate roofs, so that the sky-line is discontinuous. …Later in the the book du Cerceau shows more splendid hous houses…” es…” (page 141) 110  Blunt, Philibert  Blunt,  Philibert de l’Orme. 117-118. l’Orme. 117-118. “His personal taste comes out in a preference for elaborate forms

109

whenever buildings provide examples of them. dealing the in Doric order, forisinstance, hea illustrates ancient a pedestal decorated with rams’ heads, swagsInand swanswith carved relief, which more like Roman altar than the pedestal of a Doric column. Naturally these characteri characteristics stics are even more marked when de l’Orme comes to deal with the more ornate orders, and his capitals and cornices for the Ionic, Corinthian and Composite orders show a pursuit of richness which should not surprise us in the architect who had shown his tendencies in this direction in the tomb of Francis I.”

 

44

 

orders are the ornaments of architecture, but Palladio explicitly adds the intent that they are used to provide the psychological and visual structure to a building. Palladio also shows a powerful understanding of how ornament can be used to manipulate the appearance of space, and is possibly the first author to say that ornament can be used as a tectonically expressive device in something approaching the modern sense of the word. But to return to the matter of language for a moment, translator Richard Schofield  provides a brief note of interest which highlights hhow ow the word ‘ornament’ was perhaps  being over-used by the renaissance authors, to the point where it signified anything that  beautified. A perplexing question is introduced: can orna ornament ment be ornamented? Ornamento is

used on literally dozens of occasions by Palladio; sometimes it is clear that the word is focused or “loaded” in the sense that it refers to Albertian theories to the

effect columns, capitals, bases, pilasters, doors, windows were ornaments… We are notthat sure, however, whether Palladio intended thisand word to carry a theoretical weight on every occasion; this question need not affect the translation a great deal since the word can be translated as “ornament” in many cases, but there are occasions when “decoration” or other words would would serve better. The problem may be exempl exemplified ified by what Pallad Palladio io says… about the columns to be used in churches: “each order must be given its ornamenta   in appropriate and suitable ornamenti…” Does this mean that the columns, ornamenta the Albertian sense, are also to be given their own ornamenta ornamenta,, also in an Albertian sense? …we have vacillated between translating ornamento  as “ornament” or translating in with more natural English synonyms or near synonyms, depending on the context.111  

But it is not just ornamental church columns that are being ornamented; Alberti, Serlio, and Palladio all use the term on an even wider scale. There are many nestings of ornament.

Cities are ornamented with with buildings, squares are ornamented with

monuments and buildings, buildings are ornamented with roofs, sculptures, paintings, columns, revetment, and openings. Orders receive ornaments on top of themselves. However, the largest ornament on the scale of the building remains the order, pediment, or tower. Some of the plainly non-architectural uses of the word show the problem of undisciplined general use:

111

 Andrea Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans. Robert Tavernor, Richard Schofield. MIT Press  paperback edition, Cambridge Massachusetts, Massachusetts, 2002. Transl Translator’s ator’s note, 378.

 

 

45

“roads and bridges… form a part of architecture relevant to the ornament of cities and the countryside…”112  “And just as in cities the beauty of streets is increased by the addition of beautiful buildings, so outside the cities their ornament is increased by trees, which, when planted on either side of them, cheer us up with their greenness and make them extremely comfortable with the shade they provide.”113  “…for the greater ornament and convenience of the city one should make the street which is most used by the main businesses and passing visitors broad and embellished with 114

magnificent buildings…” “Arches thatand are splendid built at the ends of streets, that is, at the entrance to a square, are the greatest form of ornament for squares…” 115  

 Non-architectural uses aside, some very rrelevant elevant ideas on orna ornament ment appear in Palladio. It has been argued that the Greek and Roman use of tectonic ornament in their dentils and triglyphs was more for the purpose of association and solidarity with tradition rather than any intent to to express the real, ‘true’ structure of the building. Alberti was likewise not concerned with the true nature of materials, as he says “Nor do the lineaments have anything to do with material…”116  But, along with De l’Orme’s tectonic interest, a  passage in Palladio can possibly be read as a step towards intentional tectonic ornament suggestive of the ‘true’ structure: When building the surface or face of the wall above flush with the one below, only do so internally because the floor joists, vaults, and other supports of the structure will not let the wall collapse or move. move. The setback, which wil willl be outside, will be covered with a  band or a fascia and cornice, which, since it goes round the whole building, will be decorative and act as a binding for it.117  

This is still not quite the fully m modern odern idea of tectonically expressive ornament. The fact that a cornice (assumed to include dentils or brackets), a symbol of frame architecture, is used as a binding course in a masonry wall shows that association with the classical language is more important than ‘true’ structural expression, but the passage still clearly shows an intended relationship between the structure and its ornament.

112 113 Palladio,

 Palladio, 163. 165. 114  Palladio, 166. 115  Palladio, 193. 116  Alberti, 7. 117  Palladio, 17.

 

 

46

 

The above is an implied reading of a ttectonic ectonic intent for the ornament. Where

Palladio is absolutely explicit about his intent for ornament, it is clear that psychological effect is of much greater importance: With regards to the projections of cornices and other ornaments, it is a gross abuse to make them project too far, because when they extend further than is reasonably appropriate, apart from the fact that if they are in an enclosed space they will make it narrow and displeasing, they will frighten those who stand under them because they always look as though they are about to collapse. …Moreover, one should avoid at all costs making the columns look as though they are divided by putting rings and garlands around them which appear to keep them united and firm, because the more columns appear to be complete and robust the more they appear to produce the effect for which they were put there, which is to make the structure above look secure and stable.118  

For Palladio, the ornament was the visual structure of the building. The small addition “apart from the fact that if they are in an enclosed space they will make it narrow and displeasing” shows that not only was ornament providing the structure, but it was understood as able to manipulate the observer’s emotional reaction to space, a recognition of fundamental importance. Ornament not only influenced the psychological impression of individual spaces,  but also found consideration in the composition as a whole. Stairs for instance, should lead to “wide, beautiful, and ornate spaces.”119  Anthony Blunt comments on the composition of the interiors of French hôtels hôtels where  where the dramatic effect of moving from relatively dim stair to sunlit ornamented room forms the essence of the composition. 120  Thus even the spatial composition of buildings was fully calculated to make evident the investment in ornament. Alberti had minimized the ancient associations of the orders, and Palladio also reduces them to an anecdotal comment solely for the satisfaction of antiquarians. 121  The

118

 Palladio, 56.

119

120 Palladio,

66.  Art and Architecture in France 1500-1700.  Anthony Blunt, Art Blunt, 1500-1700. Penguin Books, New York, 1980. The specific example discussed by Blunt which uses this technique is Louis Le V Vau’s au’s Hôtel Lambert, Paris.  p.224. 121  Palladio, 215. “[it was shown] what kind of temples, where, and with what ornaments one should build

depending on the attributes of the the gods. These conventions have not been taken taken into consideration even

 

 

47

ornamental orders are instead said to be utilized for their structurally expressive nature  based on the antique proportions: “They must be distributed in buildings with the strongest at the lowest point because it will be most capable of carrying the load and the  building will have a firmer ba base; se; so s o the Doric will always be placed under the Ionic, I onic, the Ionic under the Corinthian, and the Corinthian under the Composite.”122  Thus, if the composite on top did symbolize domination for the Romans, for Palladio it does not. This is an example of selective rationalism at work; with the original intent of the orders obsolete but with a strong romantic desire to resurrect them, structural rationalism  becomes the basis for a new system of propriety. Equally important, if not more so, was the justification of antique precedent for the arrangement, i.e., the Colosseum. It was common for pre-elevator buildings, due to various practical and social reasons, to have a grandly proportioned street level and  piano noble noble   with the upper and attic stories diminishing in height. To apply the orders according to the classical proportions would arrive at the exact opposite of Palladio, with the relatively short and stubby Tuscan at the garret and the tall Corinthian on the ground floor, so the exact source of the rationalism is a mix of precedent and perhaps post-rationalized structural expression.123  Palladio’s arguments against mannerist ornaments show this selective rationalism at work. In order to combat ‘gross abuses’ of the classical language committed by his contemporary sculptor and painter-architects, he begins what might be considered the first modern arguments which consider ‘the nature of the materials.’ …one must not make any of these scrolls spring from the cornices, since it is essential that all parts of the cornice should be made with a particular effect in mind and should act as examples of what one would see when the building was made of wood, and beside that, it is appropriate that to support a load one needs something hard and capable of though they can be seen in many temples; I will w ill nevertheless explain briefly how other writers have reported them so that those who delight in antiquities will be left satisfied…” 122  Palladio, 17. 123  Sir William Chambers makes a similar argument in 1759: “Columns so formed could not be applied to accompany each other without violating the laws both of real and apparent solidity, as in such case the Doric dwarf must be crushed under the strapping Ionic, or gigantic Corinthian virago, triumphantly rising

uppermost, and reversing the natural, the necessary predominance in the composition. Chambers, 119.

 

48

 

resisting weight; and there is no doubt that such scrolls would be utterly pointless,  because it is impossible that a wooden beam or a piece of wood could produce the effect that they represent, and, because they purport to be soft and malleable, I cannot think of any reason why one would place them under something hard and heavy.124  

 Note that, as with Vitruvius, the sensitive question of why timber is being imitated in wood is avoided. For Vitruvius, not asking such questions showed solidarity with tradition, for Palladio behind such unasked questions lies the romanticism of an antique revival. The above ‘nature of the materials’ stance is not the only anti-mannerist argument, functional symbolism of tectonic ornamental elements also receives defense when Palladio vehemently argues against the use of broken pediments. 125  Rationalism is a selective weapon to defend the purity of the orders. Pediments are an important point. He does not use the term “ornament” to describe pediments (Alberti has already referred to roofs as adornment), but he makes comments which have an extremely ornamental nature to them: …I have built a tympanum on the front façade where the principal doors are, because tympanums accentuate the entrance of the house and contribute greatly to the grandeur and magnificence of the building, this making the front part more imposing than the others; furthermore, they are perfectly suited to the insignia or arms of the patrons, which are usually placed in the middle of facades.126 

Vestigial tectonic ornament serves as a supporting, accentuating frame for a semantic heraldic ornament. Palladio probably felt justified in such a use from his studies studies of antique buildings, three examples of which he has illustrated showing the use of a  pediment to close off a masonry barrel vault vau lt [3.6, 3.7].127 

124

 Palladio, 56.  Palladio, 56. 126  Palladio, 155. 127  Palladio, 250, 271, 313. Palladio’s reconstruction of the temples of the Sun and Moon, Mars, and the 125

temple at Trevi.

 

 

49

  [3.6, 3.7] Palladio’s reconstruction of the temples Neptune (left) and temple at Trevi (right). On the left, ‘true’ structural expression, on the right, masonry fire proofing technology masked by a vestigial pediment. 

The ancients had already broken the relationship between structure and exterior expression (something often attributed only to the 19th century), so the use of a pediment where it is not actually in line with a system of roof trusses behind was not a problem for Palladio. This illustrates another facet of selective rationalism; though the orders were displayed in a purportedly structurally rational manner, great artistic license was allowed in using the ancient symbols of roof structure. The three ancient examples show the  beginning of what will eventually be called an associative philosophy.

The vault

represents the technological improvement of the first fire-proofing, but if it was expressed on the exterior it would have radically changed the traditional temple form, so important for associative reasons. The obvious solution was to continue with the the traditional eidos eidos and  and continue replicating the old timber techne for its associative value techne.. rather than display the new masonry techne

 

 

50

 

Palladio discusses the social role of ornament but he is not nearly as detailed

about it as Alberti.128  Ornament does not serve as the vehicle for a grand social vision. From all the villa drawings presented, it appears as though Palladio’s clients were extremely wealthy; he probably did not feel it was his place to instruct them in the proper reticent manner of ornamenting their town houses so as to not conflict with nearby churches or public buildings. He does, however, suggest ornamental treatment in order to differentiate town houses from country houses; Tuscan or unpolished Ionic columns are deemed as fitting for the more rustic setting.

7. Conclusion

Looking back on the first millennia and a half of ornamental theory in architecture a few comments can be made. made. Between Suger and Alberti, the significance of ornament as a  product of human labor is clearly understood, and theref therefore ore control of ornament was seen as a powerful m means eans of expressing society’s values.

Ornament’s quali qualities ties and

capabilities in application appear to be understood in full depth, but a general theory of ornament’s relationship to the work as a whole has not yet been put forth. Alberti was certainly the first ‘modern’ writer in that his prescriptions for ornament show a social vision for the built world which was not the  status quo quo.. By reading between the lines, we can learn much from Alberti. His concession allowing the wealthy to build extravagant villas in the countryside shows an intelligent compromise  between his social vision, the social system of the time, and intractable human nature. 20th century writers such as Loos and Corbusier will make no such concessions, but will have the audacity to demand fundamental changes in society and  human nature. We can 128

 Palladio, 77. “…for great men and especially those of public office, houses with loggias and spacious, ornate halls will be required, [no doubt partly to impress, but also] so that those waiting to greet the master of the house can spend their time pleasantly in such spaces; similarly, smaller buildings of lesser expense

and ornament will be appropriate for men of lower status.

 

 

51

learn even more when we accept that Alberti’s modest attempt at a social vision was futile, many town houses ended up receiving quite resplendent ornament anyways. The fact that nobles simply could not build houses larger than cathedrals helped keep the social hierarchy apparent through raw scale, but modern industrialism and capitalism combined with new building types will change the balance of power to the private sector. Remembering the conflict of rationalism versus romanticism, where is the rationalism in these texts? Reason was used not only as a defense to justify and maintain the purity of the classical ornaments, but a rationalist system also governed the arrangement of the ornaments in the composition of the buil building. ding. The rational system was geometry; Alberti’s ‘lineaments’, Serlio’s ‘linee ‘linee occult ’, ’, Delorme’s system of divine 129

 proportions, or for Palladio, a paraphrase of Alberti/Vitruvius.   All this basically means that a rational system of system of geometrical relationships governed the disposition of ornament (and the building’s overall form). Thus, rationalism worked to protect and discipline ornament. Slowly, rationalism will turn from defending ornament towards an attack. Palladio begins the assault with a selectively rational attack on certain types of mannerist ornament which he finds disagreeable because they are not within the ‘rules,’ and De l’Orme begins attacking gratuitous ornament applied “without reason.” Palladio and Delorme, being masons rather than artist-architects or scholar-architects, were more sensitive to practical issues of building, and therefore tectonics. But tectonics remain secondary to the tradition of classicism, rational tectonic arguments are selectively used to modify taste. Alberti had attacked excessive ornament, but his objecti objection on was against the social symbolism of intemperance, De l’Orme attacks purely because of a new selective rationalism. 129

 Palladio, Book I chapter 1: “Beauty will derive from a graceful shape and the relationship of the whole to the parts, and of the parts among themselves and to the whole, because buildings must appear to be like complete and well-defined bodies, of which one member matches another and all the members are

necessary for what is required.

 

52

 

All the writers clearly understood ornament to be something necessary for a certain expected level of decorum so that life will have some dignity to it, not appearing ‘shabby.’ Alberti put this feeling best: …the whole commonwealth – should be much embellished; and by their [the ancients] letting it be known that if all these institutions, without which man could scarce exist, were to be stripped of their pomp and finery, their business would appear insipid and shabby.130  

This sentiment will continue among architects through to the 20th century – a glorification of daily function –, and even Loos will recognize but reject the idea, partially due to his own preference, and partially due to how he perceived the economic needs of his day. 131  Foremost, Vitruvius, Alberti, Serlio, De l’Orme and Palladio illustrate the power of a conventionalized system of ornament. With rigorous use of convention, tectonic devices can acquire supportive associations beyond a mere illustration of construction. All tugged classicism in slightly different directions, but they all agree that classicism was the appropriate method of building, and this allowed buildings to create a somewhat systematic and readable environment rather than an environment of many disparate tongues. The Renaissance authors come very close to calling architecture ornamented  building, but they never quite did. However, the nineteenth century concept of architecture as ornamented building is not far off; a comment Serlio makes on Tuscan city gates hints at the narrowing of the role of the architect: “I shall not mention here how to arrange the gates of cities and fortresses [as Vitruvius and Alberti had] …and leave that task to the military architect… But I will certainly discuss the way in which, once a

130

  Alberti, 155. Serlio notes how ornament provides decorum (1996 edition, 273. Book IV chapter 5):

“…sometimes this ornament goes beyond necessity, this invention [a Tuscan wall with open arches] was made for utility, for strength, and for decorum. decorum. Utility, because of the openings which it has; strength, strength,  because it is very solid and well bonded between each opening; and decorum, because it is rich in ornamentation.” 131  For Loos’s recognition of how ornament comforts the common man in daily life, See Karsten Harries,

The Ethical Function of Architecture, Architecture, 38 and 42.

 

 

53

city or fortress gate has been arranged, I think it should be ornamented”.132  This is an almost exact pre-echo of Ruskin’s explanation of what he thought architecture was: “Thus, I suppose, no one would call the laws architectural which determine the height of a breastwork or the position of a bastion. But if to the stone facing of that bastion be added an unnecessary feature, as a cable moulding, that  is   is architecture.”133  It will take Perrault’s relativist shattering of proportional mysticism to drop the focus away from the lineaments and linee occult  and  and turn it to ornament itself.

132

 Serlio 1996 edition, 260. Book IV chapter 5.

133

Architecture. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1989. 9.  John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture.

 

54

 

4. Growing Rationalism: from the Baroque through the 18th Century____________  Architecture is like a beautiful woman: she should please in herself; she needs few ornaments.  Even so, it should be noted that, where ornaments are employed in the cornice of the entablature,  some should also be carved in the various members of the architrave, but in moderation and  simply to prevent too sharp a contrast between the cornice and the architrave. A beautiful dress always has its appropriate jewels. …Ornaments are not to be used in profusion; they are like salt 134

in ragout, be dispensed with caution.  Nicolas le to Camus de Mézières, The Genius of Architecture (1780) In terms of profound new understandings, very little is added to the theory of ornament from the Renaissance to the beginning of the 19 th century; what occurs are dramatic explorations of the relationship between form, stru structure cture and orname ornament. nt. For the mos mostt part every maj major or writer continuously repeats the idea of ornament as an appropriate illustrator of the social hierarchy and a delivery device for semantic meanings, with modifications of use or style to suit their own taste  – nobody seems to take up Alberti’s modernist moral vision for the social hierarchy; understanding decorum requires that the King must receive the most ornaments.135  An increasing number of comments calling for the removal of ornament can be found, related to an increasing rationalist philosophy or unique social pressures; J.N.L. Durand, though he writes at the beginning of the 19th century, will be put in this chapter as the climax of such commentary. Perrault’s relativist analysis of the classical ornaments of architecture stands stands as the most important theoretical writing of the 17th  century. In so some me writers writers,, such as Ab Abbé bé de Cordemoy, a near-modern idea of tectonic expression will be approached, but the idea remains  pre-modern in the sense that itit is still bound by an associational hist historic oric style and a sense of social  propriety. In the 18th century, much of the discourse seems to be a direct reaction against the  profusely ornamental Rococo style which had achieved prominence.136  Other developments that

134

 Nicolas le Camus de Mézières, The Genius of Architecture; or, the Analogy of that Art with our Sensations, trans.David Brit, intro. Robin Middleton. The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Sensations, Humanities, Santa Monica, California, 1992. 84… 91. Another beautiful Gastronomic analogy. 135  Anthony Blunt gives a colorful example of this in his Art his Art and Architecture in France 1500-1700 with 1500-1700 with the story of Fouquet and his Kingly Vaux-le-Vicomte (Seine-et-Marne) (Seine-et-Marne) château. Violating the social order of ornament distribution, Fouquet was arrested for embezzlement embezzlement and all his property confiscated. Colbert was the traitor who implicated Fouquet, and Brunt notes: “Colbert was not the man to miss such an opportunity because of any of the scruples which a more sensitive character might have felt. It may, however, be thought that he went unnecessarily far in actually transporting to Versailles the best statues and the rarest trees with which Fouquet had ornamented his park.” The ornament w was as re-distributed properly. 136  The anti-Baroque and anti-Rococo stance of several writers will be discussed as this chapter unfolds, but

here are two a few that will not be mentioned, discussed by Gombrich, 21-26: Reiffstein (1746), Charles

 

 

55

will bear on the ornament question include Boullée and Ledoux’s formal explorations, the rise of a new building type, an as-yet unrecognized loss of social importance (as later identified by Victor Hugo), and two opposing philosophic schools of thought: Kant versus the Scottish Associationists. 1. 17th Century: Claude Perrault and François Blondel 

As more of scientist than an architect, in his 1683 Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns after the Method of the Ancients Perrault Ancients  Perrault is able to remove himself from all preconceptions and subject the classical classical tradition to a nnear-objective ear-objective scrutiny. He sensed someth something ing fundamentally irrational in the Renaissance art of proportions based on mystical numbers, the linee occult, and harmonic musical analogies.137  Perhaps it was reading A Alberti’s lberti’s digression re regarding garding numbers in Book 9 chapter 6, or De l’Orme’s study on ‘divine proportions’ that prompted Perrault to declare: “The extent to which architects make a religion of venerating the works they call ancient is inconceivable. They admire everything abou aboutt them but especially the mystery of proportions.” proportions.”138  Perrault attempts to expose this fascination as a matter of arbitrary beauty; he proposes that the eye simply cannot perceive obscure proportional relationships present in a work, and they therefore cannot have any real effect on the observer. 139  The above would seem to be qquite uite an accomplishment in itself, but, as a scientist, it would not be enough for him to leave architecture as a matter of taste taste or convent convention; ion; he is compelled to go further. Pérez-Gómez states that Perrault’s “concern was to place architecture… into the framework of the new scientific mentality  Nicolas Cochin the Younger Younger (1754), and J.J. J.J. Winckelmann (1755), and Freidrich Freidrich August Krubsacius (1759). Gombrich notes how, in Germany, the anti-rocaille arguments were also fueled by nationalism against French influence. 137  Robin Middleton observes that Perrault may well be directly reacting to “Rene Ouvrards 1679  Archtiecture Harmoique; ou, Application de la doctrined des proportions de la musique a l’architecture” l’architecture” (de Mézières, 19), which ardently discussed the musical analogy of tones and proportions in architecture. 138  Claude Perrault, Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns After the Method of the Ancients. Ancients . trans. Indra Kagis McEwen, intro Alberto Pérez-Gómez. Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, Santa Monica, California. 1993. 55. Another very pertinent thought occurs on page 58: “Although there are a few honest people who, perhaps because they have not given the matter enough thought, genuinely  believe that the glory of their beloved antiquity rests rests on its being being considered infallible…. infallible…. There will be many others who know very well what they are doing when they cloak in a blind respect for ancient works their own desire to make the matters of their profession into mysteries that they alone can interpret.” ‘mysteries that they alone can interpret’ could be a warning for architects of all times. 139  Perrault, 49. “…we cannot make the claim that the proportions of architecture please our sight for unknown reasons… it follows that what pleases the eye cannot be due to a proportion of which the eye is

unaware.”

 

56

 

inaugurated by Galileo and Renee Descartes.”140  Using mathemat mathematics ics science can, theoretical theoretically, ly,  perfectly   describe and predict natural phenomena. The mixture of scien  perfectly scientific tific thought iinn artistry leads to the idea that perhaps architecture, like science, can achieve perfection. 141  On this point Perrault’s rationality rationality becomes ‘selective.’ The solution is ttoo average measurements from various  precedents and call the result the new, perfect, standard.

“The arithmetic mean, a most

appropriate conceptual expression of the juste the  juste milieu, milieu, became for Perrault a rational guarantee of  perfection.”142  It is significant that Perrault never describes the orders as ‘the ornaments of architecture,’ thereby taking a step back from the Renaissance writers, but ornament does play a nothing short of a fundamental role in his argument. In the first paragraph of of the preface ornament figu figures res highly:  Now these different proportions together with their appropriate ornaments are what give rise to the different architectural orders, whose characters, defined by variations in ornament, are what distinguish them most visibly but whose most essential differences consist in the relative size of their constituent parts.143   It can be assumed that Perrault is is referring primarily to the the capitals as the defining ornaments. ornaments. In the next paragraph, the ‘most essential differences’ in proportions turn out to be not quite so essential, which will make the ‘variations in ornament’ essential : ...the beauty of a building, like that of the human body, lies less in the exactitude of unvarying proportion and the relative size of constituent parts than in the grace of its form, wherein nothing other than a pleasing variation can sometimes give rise to a perfect and matchless beauty without without strict adh adherence erence to any proporti proportional onal rule. A face can be  both ugly and beautiful without any change in proportions, so that an alteration of the features – for example, the contraction of the eyes and the enlargement of the mouth – can be the same when one laughs as when one weeps, with a result that can be pleasing in one case and repugnant in the other; whereas, the dissimilar proportions of two different faces can be equally beautiful. …although no single proportion is indispensable to the  beauty of the face, there still remains a standard from which its proportion cannot stray too far without destroying its perfection.144  

140

 Perrault, 1. Pérez-Gómez Introduction. Introduction.  Perrault, 17. Pérez-Gómez Introduction 142  Perrault, 21. Pérez-Gómez Introduction 143  Perrault, 47. 141

144

 Perrault, 47.

 

 

57

‘The features’ here are of utmost importance, because within the analogy, the features are either the orders or ornaments, ornaments, probably bot both. h. Perrault states that something something about vvariations ariations of the ornaments of the face, not the overall proportions, proportions, result in the emotional quality of the face. This poetic facial analogy sets up his entire argument, with ‘there still remains a standard from which its proportion cannot stray too far’ justifying Perrault’s attempt to quantitatively define that standard. It would have been more ‘rational ‘rational,’ ,’ rather than lay forth a single ‘perfect’ average standard for the orders, to set forth maximum maximum and  and minimum minimum variances  variances beyond which perfection would be ‘destroyed’ (accordi (according ng to tas taste, te, of course). However, every ppreceding receding writer had unabashedly set down preferred proportions, so Perrault keeps in step with the discourse’s  precedent by presenting only one option. The result for architecture, if actually observed, would have been quite restrictive: building’s ornaments could present only one emotional expression; Perrault hoped that the one expression would would be a delightful smile by his convention. convention. Of course, he does allow some license, but Perrault very sincerely wishes everybody to follow his set of  perfect averages for the ‘features’ of architecture. architecture. The great unasked question of classical architecture revivalism, ‘why are we replicating wood forms in stone?’ is addressed thoroughly by Perrault. 145  He does not ass assault ault the classical vocabulary on grounds of truth or falsity of structural representation, but rather accepts the inherited language language in his category of custo customary mary beauty. Several of the ttectonic ectonic eccentriciti eccentricities es unrepresentative of what a real timber frame building might look like but which had become common phrases in the classical vocabulary are accepted by Perrault via the use of a linguistic analogy: “Among the ways of speaking that are contrary to the rules of grammar, we find many that are authorized by long usage and are so firmly established that it is not even permitted to revise them.”146  Certain elements of ‘slang’, im improper proper because they varied from the original

145

 Perrault, 51, 52, 166-167, 173.

146

 Perrault, 166.

 

58

 

timber tectonics, are accepted due to their continued usage. 147  Other elements of slang had gone too far, and are discussed as ‘abuses.’ On this point Perrault essentially becomes a more rigorous and scientific version of Palladio, directly echoing echoing a few of Palladi Palladio’s o’s points and documenting many new ‘abuses.’ The reasoning follows the same course as Palladio – the orders provide a representational structure, the appearance appearance   of durability.

“The two most im important portant req requirements uirements in architecture are

durability and the appearance of durability, which, as we have already said, produces one of the  principle constituents of beauty in buildings.”148  Abuses wh which ich represent questionable tectonic situations are therefore improper; but it is all understood to be illusionary rather than real, which will shortly lead to the accusation of being ‘architecture in relief.’ Related to the question of ornament’s relationship with structure, in part one, chapter one,  paragraph one, a comment is made which which has extreme significance: These are the only parts dealt with here [columns, architraves, friezes, cornices], and it is their proportions that the ordonnance regulates, giving to each part the dimensions appropriate to its intended application, such as a greater or lesser size calculated for the support of a great weight or a greater or lesser capacity for accommodating delicate ornaments, which may include sculpture or moldings; these ornaments also belong to the ordonnance and provide an even more visible sign than proportion for designating and regulating the orders. orders.149 [italics added] The ornament itself itself provides a vi visual sual cue for the ord ordering ering of the stru structure. cture. The ‘structure’ for Perrault is the apparent  structure  structure (columns, pilasters), not the ‘real’ structure, which would be the hidden brick bearing walls. This is important bec because ause it establishes a relat relationship ionship between th thee structure and the ornament whereby they increase each other’s significance; the structure is there to bear the ornament, the ornament is there to regulate the structure and provide social meaning.

147

 Accepted elements include: enlargement of columns, orienting dentils/modill dentils/modillions ions on pediments vertically rather than with the slope of the roof, putting modillions on all four sides and in the cornice under the pediment, and putting triglyphs between columns. (166-167) 148  Perrault, 82. This is essentially affirming with Palladio Palladio – “the more columns appear to be complete and robust the more they appear to produce the effect for which they were put there, which is to make the structure above look secure and and stable”. Perrault directly directly echos Palladio on 71 as well.

149

 Perrault, 65.

 

 

59

At several points, Perrault rejects idea that modifications should be made in proportions to please the human eye. 150  In the context ooff his argument, th this is is not too objectionable, but it will become a thought thought that requires requires extreme sensiti sensitivity. vity. It suggests th that at the appreciation ooff architecture does not lie in the beholder, but that architecture exists independently of our thoughts on the matter – just as the scientific phenomena Perrault was observing appeared to operate with indifference towards him. him. Because Perrault was adaptin adaptingg a traditional sys system tem with a plethora of associations and details, the objective stance did not cause any damage to the observer’s experience. Difficulties wil willl arise when Durand furthers Perrau Perrault, lt, taking up an ‘objective’ stance stance to create a vocabulary without traditional associations or the meaning inherent in detailed ornament. Perrault cannot be discussed without briefly mentioning his revolutionary idea of positive and arbitrary beauties beauties and attempting to show the llong-term ong-term influence oonn ornament. Positive  beauty has to do with grandness of size, quality of materials and execution; but more interesting is the idea of symmetry providing positive beauty. 151  A building sets up a logical order, if the  building conflicts with its own order, it is loses beauty.152  The symmetry element sho shows ws a belief that buildings express a connection to ordered nature by setting up their own logical order within themselves; a thoroughly thoroughly classical ideal. For ornament, the concept ooff arbitrary beauty will have a delayed effect.

The word ‘associationism’ has been us used ed occasionally to describe the

connections that occur betw between een perceptual experience and memo memory. ry. Philosophers will not formalize this idea until the late 18th  century, but Perrault in the late 17th  seems to have an understanding of the idea when he discusses arbitrary beauty.153  This shows how in one respect Perrault was a century ahead of his time.

150

 Perrault, 51, 52. Discusses this at length in Part 2, chapter VII.  Perrault, 50-51. 152  Perrault uses the example of the Pantheon here – the lines of the dome coffers do not line up with the niches below, causing less beautiful symmetry. symmetry. Perrault means symmetr symmetryy in the Vitruvian sense; a  proportional relationship between parts. relationship parts. Page 50-51. 153  Perrault, 51. “Against the beauties I call positive and convincing, I have set those I call arbitrary,  because they are determined determined by our wis wishh to give a definite definite proportion, proportion, shape, or form to things that might might well have a different form without being misshapen and that appear agreeable not by reasons within everyone’s grasp by merely by custom and the association the mind makes between makes between two things of a 151

different nature.” Italics added.

 

60

 

The first half of Perrault’s argument, the destructive de-mystification of occult number based proportion, will have significant consequences for architecture and ornament.

By

destroying the idea of beauty defined by an absolute geometric order, the Renaissance idea of architecture as the art of the lineaments is replaced in favor of the art of ornamenting – which takes us directly to the 19th century. Rather than worry abo about ut how the eyes are related in size and  position to the ears and the nostrils, architects could turn straight to designing a beautiful set of eyes, with less care for their relationship relationship with the overall overall face. But Perrault himself does not intend for architecture to become the art of ornamenting building, he is too wrapped up in  proportions.154  The second half of Perrau Perrault, lt, the constructive creation of a new classical classical system, will generally go ignored ignored in practice. Attempting to have arch architects itects follow a standard iiss futile, as Perrault says himself “one can find agreement neither between any two buildings nor between any two authors, since none has followed the same rules.” 155  It was a mark of hopeful ideali idealism sm for Perrault to believe that he might be any different. 156  To clos closee with Perrault, it can be mentioned that though he does not dwell on it, he briefly notes, like everybody else, how ornament illustrates the social hierarchy.157 But Perrault was opposed in his radical idea of ‘arbitrary,’ customary beauty or ‘taste.’ His contemporary François Blondel believed in an absolute, non-customary beauty based in  proportions: “External ornaments do not constitute beauty. Beauty cannot exist when the  proportions are missing.”158  Since Blondel taught at the Académie Royale d’Architect d’Architecture ure with his influential textbook Cours d’architecture (1675-1683), it is likely that his ideas achieved

154

 A few scholars have said that Perrault did in fact say that architecture had become a matter of Ordinance,, I do not see where decoration, but if he said this in the Ordinance where he said it. Karsten Harries, Ethical Harries, Ethical  Function of Architecture: Architecture: Perrault understands architects as “the artist who applies an ornamental dress of various kinds to the immutable substance of architecture.”(2) architecture.”(2) Robert Middleton makes a similar comment in the introduction to De Meziere’s Genius of Architecture: Architecture: “The orders, he argued, had become little more than a decorative system applied applied to wall surfaces…”(20). surfaces…”(20). Although in practice in practice this  this is true for Perrault, it was not his stated intent. 155 Perrault, 48. 156  Perrault did understand that he was no different, but he was compelled to put forth his idea all the same. 157  Perrault, 61. “The orders of architecture architecture are utilized in two kinds of works, that iiss to say, either in edifices built for current use, such as temples, palaces, and other buildings, both public and private, which require ornamentation and a magnificent aspect, or in historical representations involving architecture…”

158

 Perrault, 34. Pérez-Gómez Introduction.

 

 

61

wider circulation than Perrault’s.159  Pérez-Gómez describes the profess professor or as a moderate in the ancient versus modern querelle querelle,, accepting ideas of custom or taste and that the antique and the contemporary were equally beautiful, but rejecting taste or custom as the ultimate recourse in matters of beauty.160  Remembering Alberti, hhee provided th three ree items from wh which ich the pleasure in ‘objects of great beauty or ornament’ is derived: invested intellect, labor, or ‘some inherent  property.’ Blondel’s labors to prov provee some kind of non-arbitrary source source of beauty show that ‘some inherent property’ is not yet ready to be discarded. 3. 18th Century Writers and J.N.L. Durand 

The 18th  century ushers in in what has been ca called lled ‘growing ratio rationalism.’ nalism.’ Michel de Frémin and Abbe de Cordemoy become interested in representative tectonic expression of the true, physical   structure as opposed to the the representational structu structure. re. Marc-Antoine Laugier’s focus oonn structural symbolism will have have a restrictive effect on ornament. The communicative ability of architecture, architecture, which historically was predominantly executed by ornament, begins to move into form and plan with the adventurous adventurous paper archi architecture tecture of Boullée and Ledoux. Sir William Chamb Chambers ers and  Nicolas le Camus de Mézières present the 19th century view on ornament, decorated structure,  just slightly before the 19th century actually begins. begins. Lastly, Durand, writin writingg from a unique soci social al situation and reacting to Laugier, provides some comments on ornament that, together with various excerpts from other 18th  century writers, could create the bulk of many Modern Movement texts.  Michel de Frémin’s 1702  Mires critiques d’architecture d’architecture   and Abbé Jean-Louis de Cordemoy’s 1706 Nouveau 1706 Nouveau traite de toute l’architecture l’architecture have  have been cited by Kenneth Frampton as some of the earliest texts pputting utting forth a tectonic st stance ance for ornament. Cordemoy will be referenced favorably in Laugier’s 1753  Essai sur l’architecture. From these three 18th century texts we can see the modern stance on ornament and structure beginning to take shape well before

159

 Perrault, 13-15. Pérez-Gómez Introduction.

160

 Perrault, 13-14, 34, 35. Pérez-Gómez Introduction.

 

62

 

the modern movement or the introduction introduction of new structu structural ral materials. Frampton’s summary shall  be relied upon for Cordemoy:161   Cordemoy proposed an architecture of simplified geometric forms [think of Victor Hugo], set one in relation to another, to result in a unified whole. …He vigorously condemned the bas relief effect of contemporary architecture and rejected scornfully the numerous motifs that were scattered over the surfaces of buildings, blurring their outlines with continuous continuous and un uneasy easy modeling modeling.. …He liked plain masonry surfaces. And, in accord with Frémin, he disco discouraged uraged the use of ornam ornament. ent. He went ev even en further; he declared that pedestals, applied orders of columns and pilasters should be dispensed with, although he conceded that pilasters could be used in antis antis   or to express the external  junction of walls. When pilasters were to be used, however, however, he insisted… there was to be no diminution in their width form top to bbottom. ottom. He desired, above all, a simplified rectangular architecture. architecture. He disli disliked ked acute angles and all curves. He approved only of rectangular door and window window openings. He liked roof lines to be hhorizontal. orizontal. Demanding the use of flat roofs or, as a more practical alternative, Mansart roofs, he sought to do away with the pediment altogether.162   What we actually have here precociously early in 1706 are several of the elements of the architecture presented in Hitchcock and Johnson’s 1932 The International Style: Style: flat roofs, plain surfaces, no sculpture, sculpture, and ‘true’ stru structural ctural expression expression.. The insistence on external pi pilasters lasters aligning with interior walls shows movement towards the idea that ornament should be structural expressive in a more physically true sense, a reaction to Perrault’s ornamented architecture of engaged columns and pilasters in in ‘bas relief.’ Cordemoy and Frém Frémin in were appreciative of the Gothic architecture of France,163  the objection to bas relief architecture shows a desire for the structure to play a more integral role in the expression, as in the awe-inspiring cathedrals. Despite these extremely forward-looking ideas, regarding ornament both Frémin and Cordemoy remain traditionalists. traditionalists. Classicism is accepted and ornament still expresses the social hierarchy, as Frampton goes on to say: “Cordemoy insisted on the hierarchical principles of  propriety in architecture, arguing that all utilitarian structures should be left entirely devoid of

161

 Emil Kaufmann has an interesting note on Cordemoy in his Three Revolutionary Architects: Architects: “De Cordemoy, whose treatise is just another book on the orders, with some feeble disapproval of the exaggerations of the Baroque.” Baroque.” (448) But Laugier seems to be quite impressed impressed with Cordemoy. 162  Frampton, 29-30. 163  De Mézières, Robin Middleton introduction, 20-21. “Michel de Fremin and the Abbe Jean-Louis de Cordemoy took up Perrault’s ideas in the early eighteenth century. They thought likewise primarily in terms of classical tradition, though, like Perrault, they enlarged their understanding of the rational nature of

architecture with reference to the Gothic. Their enthusiasm for Gothic extended even to spatial effects.”

 

 

63

ornament, thereby serving to express the difference in cultural stature between everyday building and works of institutional and symbolic import.”164  Marc-Antoine Laugier takes structural expression, rationalism, and romanticism to new heights all at once in his 1753  Essai sur l’architecture. l’architecture.   The Renaiss Renaissance ance reviv revival al occurred when scholars suddenly became interested the Roman ruins surrounding them, and here we have a case where the discovery of previously little known Greek architecture, with its noble disengaged columns, has an effect on the discourse. 165  In Laugier can bbee seen an intense romantic desire to emulate the ancient Greeks combined with a rigorous structural rationalism, putting all the traditional ornamental ornamental devices of classicism in a rather difficult difficult position. Laugier’s purist driv drivee to remove ornament, architectural historian Emil Kaufmann notes, also has a component of being a reaction to the profuse ornament of Baroque and Rococo architecture. 166  Church rocaille ornament is no longer an aid to worship, but a ‘distra ‘distraction.’ ction.’ Due to a change in philos philosophy, ophy, the  pendulum swings from Suger back to St. Bernard; ornament is no longer seen as glorifying labors made manifest in form, but as an affront to the geometric order in building that might confuse the worshipper.167  All the sensuous lines ooff the Baroque were exciting everybody everybody a bit too much; a  period of calm with more pure forms forms was felt to be needed. After Perrault’s even-handed relativism, Laugier seems to descend into the depths of fantastic bigotries – but they are all rationally rationally argued  argued bigotries. bigotries. It seems as though all tthe he great  polemic works of the 19th  century owe much to Laugier. But, to explain hhis is position: Laugier starts from a point similar similar to Perrault. All artistic decis decisions ions must be backed with reas reason; on; art is  based on clear principles governed by fixed, unchangeable laws. Inborn genius must be subject 164

 Frampton, 30-31. Architecture. 79-81. It may seem too easy to relegate  Peter Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture. relegate these writers ideas to a consequence of influences and reactions combined with a philosophy of the age, but the discovery of the Greek ruins, accelerated foreign travel, and a reaction to the Baroque obviously have some very important effects. 166  Kaufmann, 449. “…a new purism arose, hostile to all superfluous ornament.” “Denouncing lavish ornamentation, Laugier wanted the interior of the church simple and grave, to make the deepest impression on 167 the visitor without distracting him.” Some commentary on Kant will take a similar stance.  Kaufmann provides two other French writers who put this stance forward; Germain Boffrand 1745 1745 Livre  Livre d’Architecture: “He objected to the confusion of curves and straight lines, and praised the noble simplicity and calmness…”(447) and Charles-Nicolas Cochin the Younger, a few years later in Supplication aux orfèvres “Cochins main point was a warning against the curves of the Baroque, or, in his words, “ces 165

formes baroques,” with a plea for straight lines and right angles…”(448)

 

64

 

to these laws.168  This may soun soundd rather cold and restrictiv restrictive, e, but beauty an andd a pleasurabl pleasurablee emotional reaction in the observer are the intended goal: “Whenever I have looked at our greatest and finest buildings, my soul has been aroused.” 169  The Al Albertian bertian ‘in ‘investment vestment of intell intellect’ ect’ is returned to, “[architecture] stirs in us noble and moving ideas…which works of art carrying the imprint of a superior mind arouse in us.” 170  However, oornament rnament is not tthe he source of the investment, the imprint is more general, in a response to the entire building. building. But where does the  beauty come from? “The parts that are essential are the cause of beauty, the parts introduced by necessity cause every license, the parts added by caprice cause every fault.” 171  To find the essential beauty-providing parts, he imagines his famous primitive hut, which yields columns, entablature, and pediment.172  Walls are the first license for necessity. With the hut establ established, ished, Laugier uses his rationalism to re-define the classical vocabulary in terms of the hut, stripping off many ornamental parts of the classical vocabulary; pedestals, pilasters, rusticated columns, and even arches – “Let us keep to the simple and natural, it is the only road to beauty.” 173  To continue Perrault’s linguistic analogy, if Laugier were successful in extirpating his ‘faults’ from the language, the classical vocabulary would have been simplified to a grade school school level. Because ornament is not considered essential –Laugier would call it a caprice– it does not figure as part of the primitive primitive hut. Laugier starts wit withh some hard words for the oornament rnament of improper styles: The barbarism of succeeding centuries… called forth a new system of architecture in which neglected proportion and ornament childishly crowded produced nothing but stones in fretwork, shapeless masses and a grotesque extravagance – a new architecture which for too long has been the delight of Europe. Unfortunately, most of oour ur cathedrals 174 are fated to preserve the remains of this style for generations to come.   168

 Marc-Antoine Laugier, An Laugier, An Essay on Architecture. Architecture. trans. Wolfgang and Anni Herman, Los L os Angeles California, Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., 1977. 1-3, 12. 169  Laugier, 3. 170  Laugier, 8. 171  Laugier, 12. 172 Laugier, 11-12. Since Vitruvius was actually actually observing real  primitive  primitive huts in his time, I prefer his origin story. 173  Laugier, 19. 17: “The pilaster is a frivolous ornament.” 18: “Rusticated columns are only a capricious fancy…” (he pays some homage to Philibert de l’Orme) 20: “…to place pedestals under columns at ground level is an inexcusable fault.” 23: “I go further: arches are entirely useless.”

174

 Laugier, 8.

 

 

65

Such a dismissal of Gothic will be matched perhaps only by Le Corbusier.175  He con continues tinues with: [men of genius] gave up the fancy and absurd ornaments of the Gothic and Arabesque styles and put in their place the virile and elegant adornment of the Doric, Ionic, and the Corinthian. …Everything now seems to threaten us with complete decadence.176   With columns referred to as adornment, this shows a partial return to the Renaissance conception of ornament. ornament. The iinjection njection of ‘viri ‘virile’ le’ may be an important first. Healthiness, virility, and decadence will be common argumentative words used by various authors in the 19 th  and 20th  centuries as they attempt to argue the ornament question, from Pugin to Ruskin to Sullivan to Loos to Corbusier. Corbusier. It is somewhat off-color to see ap appeals peals to manhoo manhoodd so regularly iinn the discourse. Laugier does not delve into the tectonic eccentricities of the orders that Perrault described (in the modillions, dentils, etc), but he does take issue with the ornamental use of pediments. Palladio’s use of them to accentuate entrances and coats-of-arms is totally unacceptable. Pediments have to be used truthfully, at the gabled ends of buildings only, where they do in fact represent the end of a roof truss truss system. John Summerson has w written ritten about the psycho psychology logy and symbolism of ‘aedicular’ architecture, noting how “it has become a part of the ornamental systems of various styles of architecture.”177  Laugier’s cry for structural ration rationalism: alism: “How many doors, how many windows are surmounted by a ridiculous pediment!” 178 shows how rationalism can conflict with one of the more profound, universal and meaningful elements of architecture  provided by ornament; Laugier refuses allow a little primitive hut to symbolically shelter every window from the elements. One final comment comment on Lau Laugier. gier. He notes: In the hands of mediocre architects the pavilion has become an ornament, an expedient for all occasions, whenever they wished to avoid monotony. This is an abuse. I always

175

 Laugier’s objection to Gothic seems to be primarily an objection to its barbarous ornaments. Kaufmann writes “he could not overlook the character of Gothic building. He admired the contrasts of its masses, which began to mean more to him than than “order.” He saw in the choir of the Gothic church tthe he atmosphere of the forest.” (449) 176  Laugier, 9. 177

 John Summerson, Heavenly Summerson, Heavenly Mansions and Other Essays. Essays. 5.  Laugier, 17.

178

 

66

 

come back to my main principle: never to put anything into a building for which one cannot give a sound reason.179   With Serlio and Alberti describing towers as ornaments, it breaks no ground that Laugier would call a pavilion an ornament, but the pejorative connotation shows how the term ‘ornament’ will  be more often used by architects as an accusation of superficiality. For the Renaissance writers, ornament had always been been a ‘good’ thing. Decoration also receives use in a pejorative sen sense se by Laugier.180  Despite Laugier’s intense bigotries, bigotries, one has to admire him. He remains thorou thoroughly ghly classical in the sense that he builds a logical system of order and then carries it to every detail of the work (Mies van der Rohe association association intended). It is important that Laugier believes his rational arguments are natural , putting him in a long line of writers ever since Vitruvius and ending with Wright.181  Unfortunately, structu structural ral rationalism yields poor poor prospects for ornamen ornament,t, unless one finds a willingness to turn the structure itself into ornament – an approach that will be realized in the 19th century. According to Kaufmann, Laugier was enthusiastically read by the next generation, notably Etienne Louis Boullée (1728-1799), and Claude-Nicholas Ledoux (1736-1806).182  Kaufmann characterizes Boullée and Ledoux thusly: “Boullée represents primarily the struggle for new forms; Ledoux, the search for a new order of the constituents…” 183  The two continue to ride the crest of anti-ornament sentiment spawned by Baroque excesses. 184  Their moderate

179

 Laugier, 25.  Laugier, 13. “We have, indeed, moved far away from it through the grand the grand gout  of  of decoration…” 21 “…sham columns with one decorates retables.” 181  Kauffman, 448. “As a panacea against these and similar follies, the “natural” made its appearance. Laugier still understood “natural” as the affinity to nature, ignoring Lodoli’s great discovery, that every thing has a naturalness true to itself.” 182 Lequeu. The American  Emil Kaufmann, Three Revolutionary Architects, Boulée, Ledoux, and Lequeu. The Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1952. 448. “I should like to discuss d iscuss Abbé Laugier, whose writings, according to Blondel’s report, report, were so avidly read by they young revol revolutionaries. utionaries. Laugier was not an architect, but his thought appears to have influenced the students more than did the teaching of their instructors [notably Jacques-François Blondel].” 183  Kaufmann, 435. 184 Joseph Rykwert, The Necessity of Artifice. 62. Artifice. 62. Kaufmann, 446-447. In the discussion of Boulée and Ledoux’s teachers, the reaction reaction against the excesses of Baroqu Baroquee and Rococo are mentioned. Germain Boffrand makes the very modern sounding claim that “materials “ materials were to be treated according to their nature.” Kaufmann does not list Piranesi in the list of influences on Boullée, but it seems as though 180

Piranesi s spirit must have had a contribution in some of the renderings. Boullée does mention Piranesi in his ‘Statement of the Problem’: “I cannot visualize any products of an art based on fantasy, other than ideas

 

 

67

teacher, Jacques-Francois Blondel (1705-1774), took a more sensitive, typical stance on ornament within the classical tradition.185  Concerning the painter-paper-architect Boullée,186  the important item is that form is seized upon as a device to enhance the expressivity expressivity of ornament. Boullée was revolutio revolutionary nary in many ways, and his conception of ornament was certainly one; describing his Opera House, Boullée declared that the audience was to be “the chief ornament of the interior.” 187  To rely on human beings to provide the ornament demonstrates demonstrates a fantastically novel approach. All buildings that receive any human use, ornamented or not, will therefore be ornamented. It is difficult to characterize characterize Boullée easily. His Memorial for Isaac Newton is is his best known fantasy, but his other works of paper architecture actually use ornament in a traditional manner with sculptures and inscriptions to aid in the communication of the form’s meaning; implied massive scale and neglect for the usual classical proportions is what makes these drawings so alien in appearance. appearance. His teacher J.F. Blondel criticized him for this: “Those “Those artists whose immaturity must account for their imperfections are not aware that their oversized features are ridiculous, that their scale does not fit human measurements”.188  Consider hi hiss oversized ‘City Gate with Cannons’, described by Kaufmann: [Boullée] set a frieze of warriors over the arch and palaces cannons in front of the side towers. …The frieze of the warriors warriors may be interpreted as “Narrative” “Narrative” architecture. The warriors represent vigilance; the are the guardians of the city. …The crenelated roof line, the brackets below it, the horizontal layers of the podium repeat, with varied intensity, the line of the ground. ground. The concept of hor horizontalism izontalism reaches a climax in the frieze of the 189 warriors.   The articulations articulations of form accentuate the primary sem semantic antic ornament. Several of his his other explorations follow a similar vein, his Palais d’Assemblée Nationale (here carefully ordered thrown out at haphazard, incoherent, disconnected and pointless, pointless, in short, just dreams. Piranesi, architect and engraver, has turned out a few such extravaganzas.” 185  Kaufmann, 436-446. J.F. Blondel criticizes his students: “Those artists whose immaturity must account for their imperfections are not aware that their oversized features are ridiculous, that their scale does not fit human measurements …During the last fifteen years they have made progress only in depraving taste; their  boldness has increased. increased. They dogmatize, and are against anything anything contrary to their their system. They regard their teachers as stupefied with habit… They have read the essay of Laugier, but there is no reason in their reasoning.” 186  Kaufmann, 454, 455. 187  Quoted from Kaufmann, Kaufmann, 467. Boullée may have been been joking. 188

 Kaufmann, 445.  Kaufmann, 465.

189

 

68

 

shrubberies provide ornament for the building in addition to swords in voussoirs, inscriptions, modillions, and friezes), Triumphal arch with aisles, Triumphal arch with inscription, Library with pedimented portal, Library entrance with Atlantes, Square temple, and Columned cenotaph – all have large semantic semantic ornaments carried on extremely ex exaggerated aggerated forms. He seems to have enjoyed putting chariots pulled by large numbers of horses on top of his compositions. 190  Crenellated parapets for city gates and pyramidal forms for cenotaphs show a clear associational  philosophy. This leads to the question; is Boullée one of the first moderns, or post-moderns? Labels do not matter, but if part of being a post-modernist is to use historic vocabularies in a wildly unconventional manner, then Boullée fits.  Architecture, An Essay on Art  one Yet, paradoxically, reading the opening to his 1770-84 1770-84 Architecture,  one experiences a deja-vu deja-vu of  of Le Corbusier, minus the machine fascination. fascination. Everybody in the past has got it all wrong, architecture is in its infancy, the artistic side of architecture, distinct from the technical side, must be re-discovered.191  His discussion discussion of pure versus impure forms, echoing some of Laugier,192  is almost Corbusier verbatim; ornament is not mentioned directly, but constitutes a surface irregularity: I noticed…that the number and complication of the irregular appearances of the surfaces, resulted in (I must not call it “variety”) “variety”) confusion. …I…realized that it was the regul regularity arity alone that had had given m men en a clear id idea ea of the ap appearance pearance of bodi bodies… es… From these observations it is clear that man could have no exact idea of the appearance of bodies, until he had one of regularity.193   Encrusted Rococo interiors or Baroque formal manipulations contribute to the ‘complication of the irregular appearances of the surfaces,’ much as complex 19th century eclecticism will seem unbearable at the turn of the 20th. To eliminate oornament rnament in favor of pure platonic forms makes an assumption that man somehow gains something valuable from an ‘exact idea’ of the appearance of bodies. Essentially a choice ooff values occurs: cognition of pure form is believed to 190

 Kaufmann, figs. 16, 30, 31.  Etienne Louis Boullée, Treatise on Architecture. “Architecture, Architecture. “Architecture, an Essay on Art.” in in From  From the Classicists to the Impressionists: A Documentary History of Art and Architecture in the Nineteenth Century,, ed. Elizabeth Gilmore Holt. Anchor Books, New York, 1966. 192-193. Kaufmann, 470-471. Century 192  Kaufmann, 499: from Laugier’s Essai Laugier’s  Essai:: “Toutes les figures geometriques, depuis le triangle justqu’au cercle, peuvent servir a varier sans cesse la composition de ces sortes d’edifices.” “The new architect was 191

to work undeviatingly with simple geometric forms. 193  Boullee, 194, 195.

 

 

69

have greater value than the symbolism symbolism of ornament. Although, Boull Boullée ée had it both ways; form and ornament worked together, but enriching, surface-covering ornament was stripped off in favor of large representational sculptural pieces placed at carefully-selected positions on the  building’s exaggerated exaggerated form. Perhaps the greatest lesson from Boullée with regards to ornament is his foreshadowing of the difficulty difficulty of ornamenting absolutely monumental monumental buildin buildings. gs. The historic vocabularies  begin to look odd when attempted on buildings larger than a cathedral or on extremely large  planar surfaces outside their frame of accustomed association. Alberti had in fact already noticed this problem: “perhaps… the columns cannot relate to a work of vast scale.” 194  How could one  possibly compose an ornamental scheme for a building the size of Isaac Newton’s Cenotaph? Dignified concentric circles of trees are the only recourse. Ledoux built more than Boullée, and consequently had to take a more evolutionary stance on the classical lang language. uage. His treatis treatise, e, L’Architecture,  L’Architecture, apparently written in the 1790’s, appears in 1804.195  Kaufmann places it iinn context: “The boo bookk reveals the archit architect’s ect’s personality, and reflects the ideas of the era of the Enlightenment, the philosophy of Conorcet, as well as the ideals of Rousseau. …Many of his statements might serve as an introduction to an architectural textbook of our time [1952].”196  Regarding ornament, Ledoux Ledoux simply cannot be neatly categorized. Form and ornament receive vigorous exploration exploration from both within and without tradit tradition. ion. Some of his more unusual works of paper architecture are what we are most familiar with today, the spherical ‘Shelter for the rural guards,’ the Boullée-esque ‘Cimetière des Chaux,’ the ‘House of the surveyors of the river,’ or his plan for a ‘house ‘house of pleasure.’ But many of his projects rem remain ain within the bound boundss of conventional classicism, while others flirt with what might be called post-modernism, and still others, such as the rural guards shelter, are completely indefinable. To illustrate his unconventional and conventional exploration of ornament, consider his Hunting lodge [4.1] and his Tabary house and Storehouse at Compiègne [4.3, 4.4]. 194

 Alberti, 221.

195

 Kaufmann, 476.  Kaufmann, 477.

196

 

70

 

 

[4.1] Ledoux, Hunting Lodge design, c. 1790.

[4.3] Ledoux, Storehouse at Compiègne

[4.2] University Library, Mexico City, 1952.

[4.4] Ledoux, Tabary house

The latter use semantic ornament more traditionally in the classical system, and the lodge takes a revolutionary approach. approach. The pure rectangular prism prismss are nearly completely covered with with reliefs composed of trophies.197  The plane of tthe he wall becomes a can canvas vas for ornament wi with th no impli implied ed relationship between between the structure and the adornmen adornment.t. If the building were put on columns and the ornament continued all the way to the edge rather than have a frame of blank surface, it would  be fairly close to the 1952 Library of the National Autonomous Autonomous University University of Mexico [4.2].198  Despite several examples of highly ornamented works, Kaufmann notes: “Generally, Ledoux was more interested in spatial composition than in surface decoration… He aimed for serenity and grandeur, believing architecture without ornamentation to be the architecture of the future. …It tells of the desire for innovation and for a new order of the elements; of the struggle

197

 Kaufmann, 525.

198

 Jaun O Gorman with Gustavo Saavedra and Juan Martínez de Velasco, 1952 Biblioteca de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Mexico City.

 

 

71

of form for form’s sake, grandeur for grandeur’s sake.”199  It is important to note that that,, apart from  buildings which absolutely have to be in an urban context – city gates, a marketplace – almost none   of Ledoux’s projects are depicted in an urban setting, but always against a pastoral none  backdrop.200  Formal exploration explorationss cannot occu occurr in tigh tightt urban sigh sights; ts; such ex expression pression needs generous free space, not only to work practically but also for appreciation from many viewing angles. There will be se severe vere consequences for the urban environment when dramatic formal expression attempts to supplant the ornamental expression of typical street walls in a city context. At the King’s Salt Works near the villages of Arc and Senans Ledoux appears to be one of the first to deal with the architectural expression of a new building type: the industrial site. Ornamenting a villa or a public building had a long tradition, but the plethora of new building types that arrive in the 19th  century will will prove daunting for ornament. In the 18th century, the scale of industrial buildings has not yet increased to the point where the traditional ornamental vocabulary of classicism feels inappropriate, so for now, the new type is assimilated without extreme difficulty. Kaufmann describes the planni planning ng issues and Ledoux’s motivations, motivations, noting the extremely exaggerated rusticated columns as a play with material, light and shade, while “Side by-side with this modern tendency appears the Romantic trend –  Architecture Parlante – in the urns seemingly pouring forth the precious fluid, to tell us of the saline, the source of the city’s wealth [4.5].”201 

[4.5] Ledoux, The King’s Saltworks. Saltworks. Ornament adapted for industrial industrial building types. 199

 Kaufmann, 531… 532… 535. 535 is specifically referr referring ing to the House of the surveyors of the rive river. r. On 516, Kaufmann discusses Ledoux and Carlo Lodoli’s Functionalism of 1750. “The inclination towards the ideal of functionalism, and the hostility against decoration, are reflected in several other passages ooff  L’Architecture.”” If one wishes to trace ‘functionalism’  L’Architecture. ‘functionalism’ all the way back to its roots roots,, it appears as though Carlo Lodoli might be it, besides some remarks in Plato’s Cratylus Cratylus.,., noted by Guthrie in Greek Ways of Thinking:   “the essential in purpose or function, Thinking: function, with which they included fform, orm, for (as is pointed out e.g. e.g.  by Plato in Cratylus Cratylus)) structure subserves function and is dependant on it.” (21) 200  The two exceptions I am referring to in Kaufmann are Ledoux’s dramatic rendering of a church for

Chaux, and a gun foundary. 201  Kaufmann, 514.

 

72

 

Ornament was used in an attempt to make apparent the purpose of the construction, and the motif was used to link many of the buildings on the the site. It is important that this is aa King’s  King’s salt  salt works; the ornament serves the dual purposes of satisfying decorum as well as functional expression. Before discussing Durand, two writers will be mentioned briefly, Le Camus de Mézières (1721-1793202) and Sir William Cham Chambers bers (1723-1796) (1723-1796).. Boullée and Ledoux are the nontraditionalists of the period, De Mézières and Chambers will stand in as representative of the more conventional view of ornament. The Frenchman publish publishes es his his La  La génie de l’architecture; ou, L’analogie de cet art avec nos sensations in 1780, the Englishman publishes his Treatise on the Decorative Part of Civil Architecture in Architecture in 1759, 68, and 91.203  They are both signi significant ficant in that they finally present architecture predominantly as ornamented building, thus a truly 19th century idea arrives slightly before the 19th century begins. Perrault was a scientist concerned with using mathematics to objectively describe  phenomena, Mézières also attempts to investigate architecture scientifically, but for his purposes objective mathematics mathematics does not make a favorable model. Rather than impo impose se science upon architecture, Mézières rather takes up a study of human sensations to achieve a greater understanding of architecture’s effects, as the book’s subtitle suggests.204  His approach lacks what we might today call science, as he simply asks questions and suggests answers, but it is difficult to consider how one would approach a science of architectural response even today.

202

 De Mézières, 57. Introduction, Robin Middleton notes that de Mézières death date is actually uncertain.  The first two editions of Chambers were entitled “A Treatise on Civil Architecture,” with only the 1791 edition having “Decorative” “Decorative” added into the title. It was reprinted in 1862 by the English ‘Ba ‘Battle ttle of the Styles’ camp who favored Modern Modern Classicism. Sir William Chambers, Chambers, The Decorative Part of Civil  Architecture, int. by Joseph Gwilt, ed. W.H. Leeds. Leeds. Kelly and Co. Printers, London, 1862. notes notes on 61 and 311. 204  De Mézières, Robin Middleton introduction, 52-54. Middleton discusses the influence of Condillac’s  philosophy of the sensations sensations on De Mézières: Mézières: “…a recognition recognition of the capacity of external external phenomena to stir sensations is not to imply that the same sensations or the same associations will be aroused on all occasions by a particular particular object. Condillac issues a clear warning. warning. Sensations are not intrinsic intrinsic to objects; an object cannot be relied upon to produce the same emotional response in each of us, nor indeed even in ourselves on different different occasions. Le Camus de Mézières Mézières took no heed of this warning. The premise of Le Genie… is that particular sensations are aroused by particular forms and that these can be manipulated and 203

arranged to specific effect – that there is indeed a science of sensations.” De Mézières might be one of the first architectural ‘phenomenologists’. ‘phenomenologists’.

 

 

73

Mézières’ constant comments on taste205 show an understanding that perception and pleasure are subjective, yet he attempts to advance a theory of sensual response to architecture. 206  Consider one of his questions and answers: Today, in the suburbs of the Capital, an endless succession of new buildings seems to  promise enjoyment and delight. What is the cause of these sensations? The choice of  proportions; the forms that are employed, and the position in which they have been set with taste and deliberation; the ornaments, and their reciprocal relations, all combine to  produce this character and to establish the illus illusions ions that architecture creates creates..207   Like Perrault, De Mézières lacks concern for ‘true’ expression of the structure, and understands architecture as a pleasing illusion created by carefully arranged form and ornament in light.208  He attempts to adopt the traditional associations of the orders into his theory of the sensations; for instance, Corinthian should be used to evoke “grandeur and magnificence”, while Doric for a “martial quality”, and Ionic for “the tone appropriate for the Palace of Themis.”209 De Mézières has quite a few interesting things to say about ornament/decoration, reiterating some points of previous writers within his model of the sensations. 210  Architecture finds very close relation with decoration, but, in order to achieve beauty, the decoration must be disposed with with careful propo proportion. rtion. When describing the orders, he he states: “The word Order signifies a regular and proportionate arrangement of masses, moldings, and ornaments, which,

205

 De Mézières, 88, 89, 94, 101, - and most of the quotes presented in the text have ‘taste’ figuring in them. Few pages actually go by without some reference to taste, prudence, propriety, appropriateness, or social custom. 206  De Mézières, Robin Middleton introduction, 54. “The theory that Le Camus advances as to the way the shapes and forms of architecture under different conditions of lighting and shade can stir different sensations and moods is, however, borrowed from the theories of landscape gardeners – and borrowed from Morel, it would seem, more directly than from Watelet, Watelet, whom Le Camus acknowledges. All three men were in thrall to the sensationalist philosophers.” philosophers.” Camus advances his sensual theories in the text on 70-75, and 93-99. On 93-99 he discusses the attempt to create various emotions in the observer by use of mass, ornament, light, and proportion. 207  De Mézières, 79. 208  De Mézières, 96. “The first glimpse must hold us spellbound; the details, the masses of the decoration, the profiles, the play of light, all conduce to this same end.” 209  De Mézières, 96. Middleton says that by Themis, Themis, De Mézières means ‘justice’. ‘justice’. 210  De Mézières, 77: (opening line of the the book) “Architecture, or the art of building, is divided into into a number of branches. It is our purpose to consider this Art relative to decoration, in which true beauty consists in the proportions that relate the various parts of buildings to each other” 88: 8 8: “The principal rooms in an apartment must be in keeping with the exterior, as we have said; but they must also be in harmony with each other in extent, in the height of the ceilings, and in the decoration. A progression in the richness of the ornament is prescribed; but this is a delicate matter, and it requires great taste and prudence.” 89: “Ornaments, therefore, must be sparingly employed and disposed with taste; one cannot devote too much

consideration to their genre, their character, and their necessity.” 90: Comments about interior cornices disrupting the space (sim. to Palladio).

 

74

 

when incorporated in a façade or other architectural decoration, make up a beautiful whole.”211  A whole façade makes a decoration; while in practice many previous architects did this, nobody has gone quite as far as to call an entire entire façade a decoration. Durand and Pugin will nnot ot approve. As his theory has great complexity, it may be unfair to position Mézières as the first to declare that architecture is the art of decorated construction, but as he associates architecture so closely to decoration in his opening lines and suggests that architects look to stage decorations for the inspiration of emotive effect, it seems partly just.212  Fundamentally, Mézières proposes equally balanced composition relying on well-proportioned well-proportioned form and prudent use of ornament, all carefully modified to evoke intended sensations. De Mézières’ eccentricit eccentricities ies could be furthe furtherr discussed at great length, but it will only be pointed out how he continues the idea of ornament’s display of the social hierarchy and shows an extreme displeasure with the ‘frivolous’ ‘ephemeral diseases’, and ‘depravities of taste’ that are the Baroque and Rococo styles.213  He also uses ‘ornament’ and ‘decoration’ synonymously quite frequently. Sir William Chamber’s 1791 Treatise on the Decorative Part of Civil Architecture Architecture shows  shows an English conception of architecture in the 18 th  century: rational, cool-headed, ‘proper,’ classicism, with twinges of romanticism and a conscious allowance for the basic absurdities of classical architecture.214  While De Mézières refers to sensationalis sensationalistt philosophers and produces a handbook for making a French hôtel ,215  Chambers refers strictly to architectural writers and  produces a treatise that could stand proudly next to Vitruvius. He carefully considers all that have come before in the classical tradition, dissects, and selects what he decides as the most 211

 De Mézières, 80.  De Mézières, 71, 77. 213  De Mézières, 72, 128-129, 89, 91-92. On 128-129, it can be noted that ornament not only shows the wealth of the owner, but also is modified to express his character. 214  By “basic absurdities,” I refer to Chambers on the Corinthian order, 240: “beauty and fitness are qualities that have very little connexion with each other; in architecture they are sometimes incompatible... And there are many things in that art which, though beautiful to the highest degree, yet carry with them, in their application, an evident absurdity; one instance whereof is the Corinthian capital, a form composed of a slight basket, surrounded surrounded with leaves and flowers. Can anything be more unfit to su support pport a heavy load of entablature, and such other other weights as are usually placed upon it it?? Yet this has been approved and adm admired ired some thousand years, years, and will probably probably still continue to be approved and admired for ages ages to come.” Sir John Summerson, The Classical Language of Architecture. Architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, Cambridge, 1993. 38: Summerson explains the English 18th century “addiction to Palladio,” with a “puritanical” yet “incurably romantic” stance on architecture. 212

215

 De Mézières, 17. Robin Middleton intro: “Le Camus’s study is, indeed, essentially a handbook for the hôtel.””  planning of the French hôtel.

 

 

75

appropriate – a true classical eclectic.216  Chamber’s ddraws raws from archaeology, th thee Renaissan Renaissance, ce, and the very last generation, upholding none to be absolute, but on occasion agreeing with Perrault here, Vignola there, there, Scamozzi there, Vitruvius Vitruvius here. Laugier stands as the only writer who does not receive camaraderie, but several witty barbs for his inability to contain his rationality appropriately.217 Chambers uses the word ornament in the Albertian sense.218  The title of the treati treatise se alone suggests a conceptual distinction between construction and ornament, and indeed, he divides architecture into two parts: …in architecture, there are certain elementary forms which… are the principal constituent objects objects of every composition… of these there are in our art two distinct distinct sorts, the first consisting of… those that were essentially necessary in the construction of the  primitive huts [column shafts, base, abacus, architrave, classical timber roof parts] …All these are properly distinguished by the appellation of essential parts, and form the first class. The subservi subservient ent members contrived for the use and ornament of these, an andd intended either to support, to shelter, or to unite them gracefully together, which are usually called mouldings, constitute the second class. 219   Though he disparages Laugier,220  Chambers does in effect use the same primitive hut model, only accepting accepting a much more diverse diverse vocabulary. Even though tthe he columns are the first

216

 Those frequently mentioned include: Vitruvius, Alberti, Serlio, Delorme, Palladio, Scamozzi, Perrault,

Blondel, Vignola,Bernini Bernini,(among Le Clerc, De ),Chambrai, Demention Cordemoy, Sangallo, Gibbs, Jones, Wren, Bramante, others others), and special of Abbé Laugier. HeVanbrugh, notes in theInigo preface, 59-60: “Few subjects have been more amply treated than architecture… Yet one thing of great use remained to be done – at least in our language – which was, w as, to collect in one volume what lay dispersed in so many hundreds,… and to select from mountains of promiscuous materials a series of sound precepts and  perfect designs.” Which he then does. does. 217  Chambers, 173: “A certain French Jesuit…who, some thirty years ago, first published an essay on architecture, which from its plausibility, force, and elegance of diction, went through several editions, and operated very powerfully on the superficial part of European connoisseurs.” connoisseurs.” 239: “In this, however, they seem to carry their reasoning rather too far; a step further would lead them into the same road with Father Laugier, who, having sagaciously found out that the first buildings consisted of nothing but four trunks of trees and a covering, considered almost every part of a building, excepting the column, the entablature, and the pediment, as licentious or faulty; and in consequence thereof, very cavalierly banishes at once all  pedestals, pilasters, pilasters, niches, arcades, arcades, attics, domes etc. etc. etc. it is only by special favour that that he condescends to tolerate doors or windows, or even walls.” 218  Chambers, 201. “In imitation of the ancients, the moderns have made the orders of architecture the  principal ornaments ornaments of their structures. structures. …On some some occasions they are employed employed alone, the the whole composition consisting of only of one or more ranges of columns with their entablature. At other times the intervals between the columns are filled up, and adorned with arches, doors, windows, niches, statues, basreliefs, and other similar inventions.”

219

 Chambers, 100.  Chambers is not at all enthralled with the mania for Greek architecture that set Laugier off. 83, 86-87.

220

 

76

 

‘essential’ class, he refers to them as ornament and  decoration.  decoration.221  Chambers does bring a unique appreciation of one of the facets of ornament to the table, reflective of Britain’s growing  prominence as a commercial power: But these [advantages], however great, are not the most considerable; that numerous train of arts and manufactures, contrived to furnish and adorn the works of architecture, which occupy thousands, and constitutes many lucrative branches of commerce… …for where  building is encouraged, painting, sculpture, and all the inferior branches of decorative workmanship, must flourish of course; and these have an influence on manufactures, even to the minutest mechanic productions; for design is of universal benefit, …the importance of which, to a commercial people, is obvious; it requires no illustration.222   Much more could be said about Chambers, but he will be left as a classicist who understood the semantic dimension of ornament,223  and called for a certain level of restraint, echoing all the the anti-baroque sentim sentiments ents of his con contemporaries. temporaries. He will be reprin reprinted ted by the ‘modern classics’ at the height of the 19th century battle of the styles to help stem the tide of the Goths. Lastly, Chamber’s divisi division on of the practice of architecture into “distribution, “distribution, construction, construction, decoration, and economy”224 is exactly what Durand will find so displeasing. As a professor for engineers at the French École Polytechnique, it should not be surprising that Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1760-1834) has absolutely nothing positive to say about applied ornament. ornament. He ruefully notes in tthe he introduction to his 1802-5 1802-5 Précis  Précis des leçons d’architecture données à l’École Polytechnique: Polytechnique: “Most architects take the view that architecture is not so much the art of making useful buildings buildings as that of decorating them. Its principle object, accordingly, is to please the eye and thereby arouse delightful sensations…”225  This would all have to change. The intensely romant romantic ic imagined primitive hut hut drove Laugier’s ratio rationalism, nalism, but Durand does not appear to have a hair of romanticism behind his reasoning. 221

 Chambers, 141: “In composing the orders and other decorations which are contained in the present  publication, this this method has constantly constantly been observed…” observed…” 277: “With regard regard to the beauty beauty of the exterior exterior decorations, if an order comprehends two stories…” For ornament references, see note 85. 222  Chambers, 56…57…58. 223  Chambers, 108: “when freizes or other large members are to be enriched, the ornaments may be significant, and serve to indicate the destination or use of the building; the rank, qualities, profession, profession, and achievements of the owner…” 289, 292. Some of his comments mirror the anti-Baroque sentiment on the continent. 107-109. “With regard to the manner of executing ornaments, it is to be remembered, that as in sculpture a drapery is not estimable unless its folds are contrived to grace and indicate the parts and articulations of the body it covers, so in architecture the most exquisite ornaments lose all their value, if they load, alter, or confuse the form they are designed to enrich or adorn.”

224

 Chambers, 97.  Durand, 79.

225

 

 

77

In one of De l’Orme’s comments already mentioned, the Vitruvian triangle of commodity, firmness, and delight was skewed towards the commodity and firmness direction, away from ornament. Durand effectively does away with the triangle altogether, altogether, replacing it with a linear equation: Firmness + Commodity = Beauty. 226  Such a diagram w will ill appear in Learning in  Learning  from Las Vegas Vegas   in 1972 as an accusation against Gropius, showing how far the long arm of Durand’s ideas reached.227  But De l’Orme is rather dis distant; tant; Durand primarily work workss forward from Perrault.228  Perrault accepted the arbitrary beau beauty ty of customs and association, association, Durand does not, letting his rationalism rationalism tread into realms previously left calm. calm. It would seem that an engineer could handle the basic task of “satisfaction of our needs”229 laid out by Durand, but Antoine Picon assures us that “in his eyes, the imperatives of utility, fitness, and economy did not mean that architecture was in any way subordinate to engineering.”230  A very important statement made by Perrault to defend the classical timber ornaments was: “…the grace and beauty of these things [timber roof parts in stone] do not depend on such imitations and resemblances, for if they did, the more exact the imitation, the greater would be their beauty.”231  This shows Perrault scien scientist’s tist’s idea of beauty where an equation equation exactly matches the phenomena. E = Mc2 has a certain ‘beauty’ about it, but to apply the same thought to art suggests that a photograph must be more beautiful than a charcoal sketch, something which may not necessarily be the the case. What held Perrault bac backk was this allowan allowance ce for arbitrary beauty. Durand uses the clarity of imitation argument to attack the classical tradition’s ornaments, insisting that pleasure derived does does indeed  indeed depend on their imitating accurately accurately the  the originals, and since they do not, “that such decoration is itself a chimera; and the expense that it entails is 226

 J.N.L. Durand, Précis Durand, Précis des leçons d’architecture données à l’École Polytechnique, Polytechnique, trans. David Britt, intr. Antoine Picon. Picon. Getty Research Institute Institute Publications Publications Program, Los Angeles, Angeles, 2000. As he wishes to completely disassociate himself from the ancients, Durand does not actually use the Vitruvian terms, but says: 84: “fitness and economy are the means that architecture must naturally employ, and are the sources from which it must derive its principles… a building is to be fit for its purpose, it must be solid, salubrious, and commodius.” 86: “…economy is one of the principal causes of beauty.” Between the jumble of terms, the old Vitruvian expression is in there. 227   Learning Learning From Las Vagas, 142. 228 Durand, 33. Picon places Durand thusly: “In many many ways, Durand stands between Perraul Perraultt and Comte in seeking to deconstruct everything that might appear chimerical in the chosen objectives of architecture.” 40: “Durand’s system is closely modeled on that proposed by Claude Perrault in his Ordonnance Ordonnance…” …” 229  Durand, 85.

230

 Durand, 52, Picon introduction.  Perrault, 52.

231

 

78

 

folly.”232  Photographs are therefore more beauti beautiful ful than charcoal sket sketches. ches. Durand co concludes: ncludes: “From this it follows that, if the principal aim of architecture is to please, it must either imitate to  better effect, or choose other models to imitate, or adopt other means than imitation.”233  He chooses to adopt other means than imitation, and the classical system of ornament is thus cast off.234 With regards to the ornament question, Antoine Picon comments on Durand’s rather oddseeming purism: Considering that Durand had given the world a number of projects for revolutionary monuments [which are ornamented], his outright dismissal of the symbolic dimension is surprising, to put it mildly. mildly. The same goes for his denunciation of decorati decoration, on, in view of the numerous examples of decorated buildings buildings in his book. ...again, the orders, which he dismisses as of no real interest, noneth nonetheless eless form part of hi hiss syllabus. The paradox is  partly resolved if we remember that the utilitarian role of architecture must involve some concessions to usage and taste…235   Foremost, however, Durand illustrates how ornament can move into unconventional places; for him, the plan. Some of his plans mak makee a fine examples of patterned abstract abstract ornament on the scale of the entire building [4.6, 4.7, 4.8].

232

 Durand, 83. 79: “If architecture is to please through imitation, it must, like the other arts, imitate nature.” (he then analyzes Laugier and Vitruvius, V itruvius, showing how they are poor imitations of nature) 82: “The forms of the orders were no more imitated from a hut than their proportions were derived from the human body. …It is evident, therefore, that the Greek orders were not an imitation of the hut at all; and that, if they had  been, this imitation would have been utterly imperfect and consequently incapable of producing the effect that was intended.” intended.” [italics added] 233  Durand, 83. 234  I would like to document here some some of Durand’s more odd arguments. On 82, in an extremely strange  paragraph, he appears appears to argue against against the timber origin origin story: “It would be vain to argue that planks or  boards were subsequently subsequently laid on the pots to broaden the the upper part and make make it more capable capable of carrying the entablature; seeing that for an equal length a piece of wood made up of longitudinal fibers is less likely to break than a piece of stone composed composed of an aggregation of littl littlee grains. If one of these objects had served as a model for the other, it would be more natural to suppose the wooden boards to have been imitated from stone capitals than to suppose the latter to have been imitated in stone.” Or, 84: “…the

Greeks attached no importance whatever to architectural decoration…” 235  Durand, 35. Picon introduction.

 

 

79

[4.6, 4.7, 4.8] Durand, Sullivan, and Wright. From integral ornament to application to integral integral..

 

Durand will of course not call his plan developments exercises in ornament, 236 but later, Frank Lloyd Wright will use the term to describe describe his own work, and it appears to be justified. Using the  Précis   as a textbook that the École des Beaux-Arts,237  newly resurrected 1818, will transfer  Précis Durand’s expertise at this kind of ornamenting to later generations, including Louis Sullivan. Thus Durand, one of the greatest figures in the anti-ornament argument, actually enriched the  possibilities  possibiliti es of architectural ornament by using abstract patterned figures in plan, an idea which had never before been explored with such rigor except perhaps in religious buildings. Architects simply cannot be separated from their social context, and Durand is no exception. Durand was writing, Peter Col Collins lins notes, in the wake of revolution revolution when “The French state was in fact too poverty-stricken to ornament new public buildings even if it had wanted to.”238  Such an observation gives wei weighty ghty significance to comments such such as “the expense that it entails is folly,” and: …no one can decorate without money; and it follows that the more one decorates, the more one spends. It is therefore natural to co consider nsider whether it is true that architectural decoration, as conceived by architects, gives all the pleasure that it is expected to give; or at least, whether the pleasure justifies the expense.239 

236

 He does come close to saying this. 86: “…decoration cannot be called beautiful or give true pleasure, except as the necessary effect of the most fitting and the most economical disposition.” 237 Durand, 1. Picon introduction. “…the Précis “…the Précis was  was soon to outgrow its intended audience of Polytechnicians to become a staple at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts itself. Thumbed by generations of students throughout the nineteenth century, it lost its influence only with the triumph of the modern movement…” 238  Peter Collins, “Towards a New Ornament” The Fifth Column, Vol 4 No. ¾ 1984. Reprinted from the

June, 1961 issue of Architectural of Architectural Review, originally Review, originally entitled “Aspects of Ornament.”  Ornament.” 1.  Durand, 79.

239

 

80

 

The only means of expression left to an architect when money is not available is in the artistic distribution of form or structure; Durand’s efforts show the resilience of ornament in extreme situations. It must be conceded that he does attempt to justify justify his choice of plan arrangement by economy “…it will be readily supposed that the more symmetrical, regular, and simple a building is, the less costly it becomes.”240  But it seems impossible that eco economy nomy could be the driving force force  behind all these arrangements, as putting a circle in a square, as he often does, invariably creates quite un-economical dead space. Antoine Picon and Pérez-Gómez have discussed Durand thoroughly; one theme, however, will be culled for discussion in relation to ornament. 241  It is the matter of metho method. d. Durand appears to begin the the question of the ‘How’ an andd the ‘What.’ Picon notes: “By replacing transcendental origins with an insistence on method, and by preferring clarity of argument to the seductions of form, the  Précis… earns a place among the earliest rationalist manifestos of the nineteenth century… Like Violet-le-Duc after him, Durand was pursing “a means of producing, even more than a product.”242  This shows a dramat dramatic ic turn to process oorr method-based desig design; n; a rational desire to justify the end result somehow by the means, the eidos eidos   is supplanted by the techne.   While not necessarily a ‘bad’ th techne. thing, ing, it shows that the the architect has no idea of their own to to attempt to put forth, and rather turns to the process of architectural production as the idea, making the important assumption assumption that this will bbee found interesting by society. society. Ornament can be found on the side of the ‘what’ in this theme. One does have to give sympathy to Durand in some of his arguments; classical architecture’s grand beliefs beliefs are indeed fundamental fundamentally ly irrational. Fortunately, few demand for art to be completely rational. rational. As has been discussed, Serlio und understood erstood that the intend intended ed maleness and femaleness of the orders was too abstract to be understood, and thus put maids in his Corinthian fireplaces. fireplaces. Rather than replace the oornaments rnaments with something that might be mo more re

240 Durand, 241

85.  Pérez-Gómez, Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science,  Pérez-Gómez, Architecture Science, 298-326. Antoine Picon, “From Poetry of Art” to Method: The Theory of Jean-Nocolas-Louis Durand” from Jean-Nicolas Durand, Précis Durand, Précis of the  Lectures on Architecture.1-54. Architecture.1-54. Also, Joseph Rykwert, “The Nefarious Influence Influence on Modern Architectu Architecture re

of the Neo-Classical Architects Boullee and Durand”, The Necessity of Artifice, Artifice, 60-66.  Durand, 53. Picon introduction.

242

 

 

81

legible, in his theory Durand simply decided to remove them entirely, taking the meaning inherent in ornament along with them.

3. Late 18th Century Philosophy’s influence on Ornament  

In the late 18th century the philosophical discourse will put forward two strong ideas that shape the 19th century’s sentiments, Immanuel Kant’s 1790 Critique of Judgement  and  and writings from the Scottish school school of Associatio Associationist nist philoso philosophers. phers. The former created the urge for the artist to express individual creative creative genius, the latter justified adaptation of historic historic styles. For ornament, this sets up the idea that, to be original, a new style will require a totally new ornament, while the impulses of associationism hold the architect back to recognizable, older styles of ornament. The influence of the Associationist philosophers (Hume and Hutcheson, Gerard, Kames, Dugald Stewart and Archibald Alison) has been described by Joseph Mordaunt Crook in his The  Dilemma of Style.243  It has been argued that something llike ike this idea has been at work since Vitruvius, but only now fin finally ally achieves sys systematic tematic description description.. The philosoph philosophyy was highly influential on the picturesque English movement, wherein architecture is not important for its direct communication of ideas, but for the indirect associations with memories and moods that the various styles and treatments of ornament are capable of instilling instilling in the viewer. Crook provides a selection from Richard Payne Knight’s 1805 An 1805  An Analytical Inquiry into the Principles of Taste to describe the stance of association: As all the pleasures of the intellect arise from the association of ideas, the more the materials of association are multiplied, the more will the sphere of those pleasures be enlarged. To a mind richly stored, almost every object of nature nature or art, that presents itself to the senses, either excites fresh trains or combinations of ideas, or vivifies and strengthens those that existed before: so that recollection enhances enjoyment…244   Knight’s Downton Castle in Heredforshire (1771-8) shows his ideas in action; the exterior is ornamented as a medieval castle, the interior is classical. 245  This shows the beginning of ornament being appropriated not for communication of any specific ideas, but to satisfy a 243

 Joseph Mordaunt Crook, Dilemma Crook, Dilemma of Style:Architectural Ideas from the Picturesque to the Post Modern. University  Modern.  University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987. 1 987.  17-21 discusses the philosophy of association and its relationship with the architecture of the period.

244

 Quoted from Crook, 20.  Example taken from Crook, 29.

245

 

82

 

 picturesque taste; conclusively demonstrating Victor Hugo’s observation as correct, architecture is no longer communicating the great ideas of society, but merely satisfying our pleasures, a not unimportant role in itself. The philosophy of the associationists can be seen as a response to the loss ornament was experiencing; a re-validation of its use for romantic connections with the historic ornamental vocabularies. A universal study of the classics among the educated made classicism seem appropriate, while a growing nationalism and nostalgia for the medieval period made Gothic also seem like a real possibility. possibility. American architects throu throughout ghout the 19th century will use the idea of association as a justification justification for their choice of styles. styles. Consider a passage from And Andrew rew Jackson Houses : Downing’s influential 1850 The Architecture of Country Houses: There are positive and human elements of beauty in these styles which appeal at once to the feelings. But there is is,, besides, anoth another er source of ppleasure leasure to mo most st minds, whi which ch springs not from the beauty of form or expression in these styles of architecture, but from  personal or historical associations connected with them; and which, by a process half addressed to the feelings and half to the intellect, makes them in the highest degree interesting to us.246 [not my emphasis] Associational theory will remain strong until early moderns such as Violet-le-Duc, Sullivan, and Otto Wagner begin to directly assault it. it. After dismemberment by the modern movement and a  period of dormancy, scholars such as Alan Alan Colquhoun will re-discover re-discover it and use it as a device for the justification of post-modernism.247 While the Scottish school was bolstering a case for eclecticism and romanticism (and therefore historic ornament), Brent C. Brolin identifies Kant’s roughly contemporaneous 1790 Critique of Judgement   as important in the philosophic origins of the problem of ornament. 248  Brolin describes Kant as putting putting forth that originali originality ty is the essence of genius. This tends to make 246

 Andrew Jackson Downing, The Architecture of Country Houses, int. J. Stewart Johnson. Dover Publications, New York, 1969. 27. 247   Learning Learning From Las Vegas, Vegas, 89: “…architecture depends on its perception and creation on past experience and emotional association…” 129: “Artistically, the use of conventional elements in ordinary architecture – be they dumb doorknobs or the familiar forms of existing construction systems – evokes associations from past experience.” experience.” Venturi, Brown, and Izenour credit Colquhoun’s essay “Typology and Design Method” in Arena, in Arena, Journal of the Architectural Association, Association, June 1967 1967 pp 11-14. During the ‘period of dormancy’ some sensitive architects, such as August Perret, will still understand the importance of association. 248  Brent C. Brolin – Architectural –  Architectural Ornament: Banishment and Return. Return. This is one of the starting points for

Brolin’s arguments on why ornament became so difficult for modern architecture. architecture. It marks the beginning of the philosophical shift towards the modern artist’s accepted role in society.

 

 

83

the evolutionary approach to art less acceptable; where is the originality in doing ornament as it always has been done? Or, Kant helped architect architectss discover, as John Summerso Summersonn puts it: “that architecture was almost entirely an affair of copying ...” ...”249  The historic styles as applied in the 19th century were essentially defined by their ornaments; Kant’s role for the artist was going to create serious trouble by helping feed the dilemma in the Battle of the Styles; neither classic nor gothic was good enough, voices were to cry for a new style with a new ornament. Karsten Harries provides a similar commentary on Kant, showing how completely the Rococo style had managed to confuse and alienate philosophers as well as architects: Already in Kant’s Critique of Judgement  we   we find hints of this death [of ornament]: the same considerations that led Kant to assert the autonomy of the aesthetic sphere force him to question the role of ornament in architecture, especially in church architecture. Kant shares the Enlightenment’s inability to accept the profusely ornamented churches of the Rococo, an inability that led to decrees actually forbidding such use of ornament. The Enlightenment’s conception of a church had to find this ornament not only inessential but altogether altogether out of place. A purified religion no longer has any use for the aesthetic, just as the pure art demanded by the aesthetic approach refuses to serve religion.250   So philosophers, too, helped force the pendulum of ornamental appreciation from Suger back to St. Bernard. All this focuses on tthe he aesthetics ooff ornament rath rather er than the meaning – a manifestation of labor, necessarily necessarily modified by aesthetics. Looking at some of the more splendid Rococo interiors, interiors, one can perhaps sympat sympathize hize [4.8]. Kaufmann, describi describing ng J.F. Blond Blondel’s el’s frustrations with his adventurous students Boullée and Ledoux, makes apparent that the intense urge for novelty pre-dates Kant’s work,251 but Kant seems a significant enough figure to mark as a turning point.

249

 Summerson, Heavenly  Summerson,  Heavenly Mansions, Mansions, 197.

250

 Karsten Harries, The Ethical Function of Architecture. Architecture. 44.  Kaufmann, 443.

251

 

84

 

 

[4.9] Rococo in full splendor. Music Room, Sanssouci, Potsdamn. 1746 onwards. Photo from Gombrich. 6. Conclusion 

Between Boullée and Ledoux’s work an intense unrest is apparent for innovation that cuts free all the chains of tradition, and this is well before b efore new structural methods and building types will give a greater sense of urgency to tthe he situation. It should als alsoo be apparent tthat hat taking var various ious selections, one could, if they wished, create a good portion of the main points in Towards a New  Architecture.. The field for the 19th  century has been set, and the twentieth is already almost  Architecture  present. A large question looms: with increasing literacy, will ornament have anything important to say as it moves forward in time? As Hugo put it, is architecture architecture as the great book of humanity going to be closed? Ornament was supplanted by print as the means for commun communicating icating the real meaty ideas of human civilization somewhere between the 17 th  and 19th  centuries. In the preliterate ancient and medieval worlds, ornament was the primary means of communicating lasting messages to a mass audience; architecture played an integral part in educating individuals about their culture and what was expected of them. The rise of mass printing and literacy rates between the 17th and 19th centuries means that people no longer learned everything they needed to know about their culture and world-view from having a priest explain pictographic stories in their local

church’s stained glass windows. windows. Despite ornament’s lesser role in explain explaining ing a society’s view of

 

 

85

itself and of the cosmos, ornament was still used by most architects to communicate semantic messages directly all all the way throu through gh to World War II. Ornament serves many ffunctions; unctions; to consider striking it off of architecture because one of them has lost its purpose will be a consideration requiring most careful reflection.

 

86

 

5. The Use of Ornament: The Nineteenth Century____________________________ Architecture, the “art of ornamental and ornamented construction”.252  James Fergusson, 1855 It is not an understatement to say that in the 19th century the question of ornament received more theoretical examination examination than any other part of arch architecture. itecture. The extravaganzas of ornam ornamentation entation could almost be described described as an agonizing love aaffair ffair between many tempting mistresses. mistresses. If the 18th century could be grossly generalized, thinking primarily of Laugier, as rationalism guided by romanticism, the 19th might be grossly generalized by adding moralism into the mix. Ornament weathers the storm, and was even looked to as a solution for the problem of a new style. The major theoretical stances sh shall all be discussed, along with a discussion discussion of how some architects of the century practically responded to the new pressures in a manner other than historicism. For the theoreticians, the implications of Pugin, Ruskin, Ruskin, Owen Jones, Viollet-le-Duc, Semper, and Otto Wagner will be discussed in relation to the theme of the machine, ornament’s interaction with the structure, and the new desire for a rational, process, or a “how” based architecture. For the practitioners (some also theoreticians theoreticians), ), examples will be limited to: to: Henri Labrouste, John Wellborn Root, Louis Sullivan and Otto Wagner, who, among many others, all attempted to work work with ornamen ornamentt in a progres progressive sive manner. Otto Wagner achi achieves eves something approaching a resolution with the question of the machine, but he does not solve the great question of the 19th century: how to address the new metal frame.

1. Pugin, Ruskin, Owen Jones and Robert Kerr

With Durand already discussed, Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812-1852) becomes the next figure to put forth major major arguments. He marks the rising tide interest in Gothic Gothic architecture ever since Horace Walpole’s Strawberry Hill (begun 1749).253  Pugin does not begin any unique theoretical points, but he does begin to shape the character of the debate surrounding ornament in the 19th century. Essentially, combi combine ne the moral social vision and revivali revivalism sm of Alberti with the

252

 Crook, 112. Ideals, 100-105.  See Peter Collins, Changing Ideals,

253

 

 

87

structural rationalism of Laugier, and you arrive at something approximating Pugin.254  Except now Gothic is the style to be revived, based on somewhat intense nationalist and religious sentiments.255  Brent C. Brolin has commented on how Pugin’s 1841 True Principals of a Pointed or Christian Architecture, Architecture, if carefully quoted from, can sound remarkably modern with its ideas of functional and structural expression.256  Take his first precept in True Principles: Principles: The two great rules of design are these: 1st, that there should be no features about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction, or propriety; 2nd, that all ornament should consist of enrichment of the essential construction of the building.257   The only difference between Pugin and the modernists is that Pugin revives a style with associations rather than than attempting to creat createe a new one. His principles w would ould seem to create an entirely tectonic architecture, but Pugin does allow for representational semantic ornament under ‘propriety,’ stating the conceptual division of ornament used within this thesis: “We shall therefore have to consider ornament with reference to construction and convenience [tectonics], and ornament with reference to architectural propriety [semantics].” 258  The form is not the  primary expression of the function; Pugin’s propriety-ornament propriety-ornament expresses the function or purpose of the building: “What I mean by propriety is this; that the external and internal appearance of an edifice should be illustrative of, and in accordance with, the purpose for which it is destined.””259 destined. There are certain rational contradictions to be aware of [5.1].

254

 Crook, 51. “Now these principals principals [of Pugin’s] were by no means new. They can be traced back to Laugier, and Lodoli, and the Neo-Classical rationalists rationalists of the eighteenth century.” Pugin’s discussion in  Principles,, 36-37 nearly exactly echoes Alberti’s rules for propriety of ornament between churches and  Principles other building types: “…it is incumbent on all men to render the buildings they raise for religious purposes more vast and more beautiful than those in which they dwell.” dwell. ” 39: he discusses the semantic ornaments. 255  Crook, 48: Pugin’s simple reasoning in the battle of the styles was: “We are not Italians, we are Englishmen.” Pugin, Principles, Pugin, Principles, 47:  47: “God in his wisdom has implanted a love of nation n ation and country in every man, and we should always cultivate cultivate the feeling… [via Engli English sh Gothic revival]” The pagan associations of classicism, which the Renaissance authors had either attempted to ignore or adapt, is made much of by Pugin – he assaults both the ‘falsity’ of replicating timber in stone, and its pagan nature (2-4). 256  Brent C. Brolin, Ornament: Banishment and Return, Return, 94. 257

 Pugin, Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture, 1.  Pugin, Principles  Pugin, Principles,  Pugin,  Principles, 2. 259  Principles, 35.  Pugin, Principles,  Pugin, 258

 

88

 

  [5.1] Pugin’s True Principles. Left: structural ornament or ornamented structure, right, each hides its own.

How rational is it to force wood into a form resembling a Gothic arch? The simple triangul triangular ar truss makes for a convenient and rational structural system; the system that the Goths had in fact used on every cathedral, but but had been concealed by the the non-bearing stone vvaulting. aulting. Had the suspended ceiling been partly integrated with the true roof trusses, Pugin would not have known what to say. Small eccentricities such as this show associati associational onal desire pre-empting ‘trut ‘truthh in the materials’260  arguments, as rationalism had served to protect the classical system, Pugin uses rationalism to argue his romance. In the Gothic, the stone vaulting which actually bears no structural load at all hid the roof trusses, and in St. Pauls, a stone screen hides flying buttresses;  both examples conceal what what was perceived to be the undesirable undesirable elements of their tectonics. tectonics. For non-structural enriching ornaments such as wallpaper and flooring patterns (semantics, or his ‘propriety’), Gombrich has noted how Pugin’s dogma took enough hold to inspire a satiric reaction in contemporary literature in Charles Dicken’s 1854  Hard Times Times..261  Pugin upheld that representational ornament could not attempt to suggest too much realism in certain instances: 260

 Pugin, Principles  Pugin,  Principles,, 1-2: “…the architects of the middle ages were the first who turned the natural  properties of various materials to their full account, and made their mechanisms a vehicle for their art.” art.” 261  Gombrich, 34-35. “This objection to three-dimensional repres representation entation in the decoration of walls or floors soon developed into a dogma dogma among Victorian reform reformers ers of design. Dickens was to make fun of it in

his novel Hard novel Hard Times… Times… The specific passage from Pugin is in in Principles  Principles,, 23-24. Nothing can be more ridiculous than… highly relieved foliage… foliage… for the decoration of a floor.” Pugin would absolutely detest some of the floor decorations at Koolhous’s Seattle Public Library.

 

 

89

  “So you would carpet your room… with representations of flowers, would you? “If you please sir, I am very fond of flowers… “And is that why you would put tables and chairs upon them, and have people walking over them with heavy boots? “It wouldn’t hurt them sir, T They hey wouldn’t ccrush rush and with wither, er, if you pleas pleasee sir. They would be the pictures of what was very pretty and pleasant, and I would fancy… “Ay, ay, ay! But you mustn’t fancy,” cried the gentleman… “for all these purposes, combinations and modifications (in primary colors) of mathematical figures which are susceptible of proof and demon demonstration. stration. This is the new discovery. This is fact. This is 262 taste.”   The authority’s need for rationalism was most perplexing for the young flower-lover. To close, Pugin ssets ets a tone of taste-reformation for ornament ornament..

Pugin was an

associationist,263 but a very strict one, the later Goths themselves had even begun to cross the line of “bad taste” with some of their more elaborate tectonic ornament. 264  He was qquite uite ready to adapt Gothic to new building types such as railway stations and commercial buildings.265  Though he was very much a proponent of tectonic ornament, he uses ‘ornament’ and ‘decoration’ interchangeably throughout his writings with ease.266  

Pugin died young, and John Ruskin (1819-1900) succeeded him as the next leading

British writer. Ruskin and Violle Viollet-Le-Duc’s t-Le-Duc’s writings are without dou doubt bt the most influential of the 19th  century, and the question question of ornament figures llargely argely in both. Ruskin’s importan importance ce stems from his rejection of the machine machine in favor of handcraft. Gombrich puts it: …the new polarity had established in art as hadsymbolized an immense on subsequent developments. …Thehecontrast between death, by influence the machine, and life, as symbolized by the traces of the human hand, soon turned into an opposition between drill and spontaneity, imitation and expression. …we are still under the spell of the polarities

262

 The passage in Dickens is quoted from Oleg Grabar, who included the full passage in his Mediation his  Mediation of Ornament . 229. 263 Principles.  “[English Gothic revival is] warranted by religion, government,   Crook, 49. From True Principles.  climate, and the wants of society. It is the perfect expression of al alll we should hold sacred, honourable and national, and connected with the holiest and dearest associations.” 264  Pugin, Principles  Pugin,  Principles,, 6-7: “Henry the Seventh’s Chapel at Westminster is justly considered one of the most wonderful examples of ingenious construction in the world, but at the same time it exhibits the commencement of the bad taste, by constructing the ornament instead of confining it to the enrichment of its construction. I allude to the stone pendants of the ceiling, ceiling, which are certainly extr extravagances.” avagances.” Tectonic ornament could apparently go too far. 265  Crook, 49. “Could Gothic really assimilate the functions and materials of the new industrial age? Pugin

affected to see no problem. problem. He produced model Gothic desig designs ns for shops and railways structur structures. es. 266  Pugin, Principles,  Pugin,  Principles, 22-23. He refers to flowery floor patterning and wallpapers, which are hardly tectonic elements, as ornament. Tectonic elements are also often described as decoration.

 

90

 

introduced by Ruskin and like to see the handmade article display those signs of happy carelessness which he praises as a sign of life.267   Ruskin did not establish this spell of empathy with the hand, it trails back at least as far as Alberti’s “The pleasure to be found in objects of great beauty and ornament is produced either by invention and the working of the intellect, or by the hand of the craftsman…” 268  but Ruskin thoroughly romanticized thoroughly  romanticized the spell spell based on his stron strongg moral vision for so society. ciety. The intellect no longer has precedence; everythi everything ng depends on the craftsman’s hands.

Owen Jones and

Christopher Dresser will somewhat balance this by focusing more on the ‘investment of mind’ made manifest by ornament. Ruskin, like Hugo, sensed that architecture had lost something fundamental by losing its social importance and being reduced to a commodity. 269  As he wrote hhis is 184 18499 The Seven Lamps of Architecture  Architecture  the crafts were being slowly destroyed by industrial production; so Ruskin, apprehensive of the individual’s prospects for the future (appearing to be destined for enslaving factory work), pulled out every moral stop he could to argue for a return to an imagined happy medieval worker who stood at the peak of virtue for all human civilization; departing from such a state marks a descent into depravity.270  His entire argument becomes a morally-couched defense of the crafts, which were slowly being eradicated. Consider some of his statements: “at all events one thing have in ways our power – thethat doing without machine ornament… all the short, and cheap,weand easy of doing whose difficulty is its honour – …They will not make us happier or wiser. …For we are not sent into this world to do any thing into which we cannot put our hearts.”271

 

267

 Gombrich, 41…42…43.  Alberti, 159. Or even Vitruvius’s comment mentioned mentioned in chapter 2. Or Suger. 269  Crook, 74. “Good art,” he [Ruskin] told a Cambridge audience in 1850 “has only been produced by nations who rejoiced in it; fed themselves with it, as if it were bread; basked in it, as if it were sunshine; shouted at the sight of it; danced with the delight of it; quarreled for it; fought for it; starved for it; did, in fact, precisely the opposite with it of what we want to do with it – they made it to keep, and we to sell.” 270  James Trilling comments on this in his Ornament: A Modern Perspective, Perspective, 195: “The ideal of craft as free expression, limited only by the imagination and skill of the worker, but embracing every level of imagination and skill, looks back to a pre-industrial golden age when society allowed its artisans to live and work by the dictates of their craft alone. Such a golden age has almost certainly never existed. Even before 268

industrialization industrializat ion as we know it, craft was regulated, and often highly industrialized by the standards of the day. The conditions of life for the artisans could be very poor.” 271 Lamps. Quoted from Gombrich, 38-39.  Ruskin, Seven Lamps.

 

 

91

 “All art which is worth room in this world… is art which proceeds from an individual mind, working through instruments which assist, but do not supersede, the muscular action of the human hand.” hand.”272 “The right question to ask, respecting all ornament, is simply this: was it done with enjoyment? Was the carver happy while he was about it?”273 “For it is not the material, but the absence of human labour, which makes the thing worthless; a piece of terra cotta, or of plaster of Paris, which has been wrought by the human hand, is worth all the stone in Carrara, cut by machinery.”274   The machine commits an immorality by imitating hand crafted ornament.275  While Durand’s rejection of ornament sounded decisive, Ruskin’s opinion bbecomes ecomes far more iinfluential. nfluential. As James Trillings says, it leads to the idea of: “If we cannot have the real [handcrafted rather than industrial] ornament, then let us have no ornament.” no ornament.”276  The obvious question for Ruskin is: how can the observer be aware of the psychological condition of of the craftsman during prod production uction by simply looki looking ng at the work?

From his

description of the work of the stone carvers at Soissons cathedral and a church near Rouen, Ruskin believes himself to be capable of reading the mood of the craftsmen through the chisel strokes on the stones.277  He explains his po position: sition: …all our interest in the carved work, our sense of its richness… of its delicacy… results from our consciousness consciousness of its being the w work ork of a poor, clumsy, to toilsome ilsome man. Its true delightfulness depends on our discovering in it the record of thoughts, and intents, and trials, and heart breakings – of recoveries and joyfulnesses of successes: all this can can   be traced by a practiced eye; but, granting it even obscure, it is presumed or understood; and in that is the worth of the thing.278   Human toil makes the root of all significance; though its presence might be ‘obscure,’ Ruskin assumes it to be ‘presumed ‘presumed or understood.’ understood.’ As mentioned, other writers have understo understood od this, from Suger to Alberti, but Ruskin uses the idea as a moral weapon to resist the coming of the machine. But he admits that the form of a machi machine ne product can take a beautiful form: form: 272

 Ruskin, Seven Lamps. Lamps. Quoted from James Trilling, 188.  Ruskin, Seven Lamps. Lamps. Quoted from Gombrich, 42. 274 Lamps, 55-56.  Ruskin, Seven Lamps, 275  Ruskin, Seven Lamps, Lamps, 52-53. 276  Trilling, 198. 277  Ruskin, Seven Lamps. Discussed Lamps. Discussed in Gombrich, 40. “It will be plain to see that some places have been delighted in more than others – that there have been a pause, and a care about them; and then there will come careless bits, and fast bits; and here h ere the chisel will have struck hhard, ard, and there lightly, and anon timidly; and if the man’s mind as well as his heart went into the work, all this will be in the right places…” Compare that with his discussion of a church near Rouen, 173: “many of the details are designed with taste, and all evidently by a man who has studied studied his work closely. But it is all dead as December; the there re is not 273

one tender touch, not one warm stroke, stroke, on the whole façade. The men who did it hated it, and were thankful when it was done.” Ruskin’s fine eye for emotional emotional chisel strokes is unmatched. unmatched. 278 Lamps, 54.  Ruskin, Seven Lamps,

 

92

 

  Ornament… has two entirely distinct sources of agreeableness, one, that of the abstract  beauty of forms, which, for the present we will suppose to be the same whether they come form the hand of from the machine; the other the sense of human labour and care spent upon it.279   This is a return to Albert Alberti’s i’s ‘inherent pproperty’ roperty’ and ‘hand of the craftsman.’ The immense  perceived difference between the machine product and the hand product for Ruskin lies in the moral component. Had Ruskin embraced the machin machinee as a valid form of expression, the the history of architectural ornament would no doubt be hugely different. Regarding tectonics, Viollet-le-Duc will be hard at work envisioning a metal architecture,  but for Ruskin, the prospects of such an endeavor are not bright, showing that though the ‘how’ had ultimate significance in the production of ornament, he prefers the associational ‘what’ to the ‘how’ when the question regards constructional form.280  Structural concealment or display, although display further ennobles the work, does not constitute a point of failure or success as it did for Pugin.281  The moral polarization established by Ruskin will do much to limit ornament; the machine was the new tool of the age which absolutely demanded some kind of integration, but Ruskin chose to reject it with a vain hope that it could be ignored. Today the building crafts have

279

 Ruskin, Seven Lamps, Lamps, Quoted from Gombrich, 39. Lamps.39-40:  “Abstractedly there appears no reason why iron should not be used as well  Ruskin, Seven Lamps.39-40: as wood; and the time is probably near when a new system of architectural laws will will be developed, adapted entirely to metallic construction. construction. But I believe that the tendency of all present sympathy and association is to limit the idea of architecture to non-metallic work; and that is not without reason. …I think it cannot but  be generally felt felt that one of the the chief dignities of architecture architecture is its historical historical use, and since since the latter is  partly dependent on consistency of style, style, it will be felt right to retain retain as far as may be, even in periods of more advanced science, the materials and principles of earlier ages.” Associationism – he does not approve of Classic, but he is essentially sympathizing with the ancient builders when they moved from wood to stone and kept the timber forms. forms. Faced with stone to metal, Ruskin choses choses to stay with stone for the sake of the old form. He compromises: “metals may be used as a cement , but not as a support  a  support .” .” 281  Ruskin, Seven Lamps. Lamps. 35: He shows an appreciation for how tectonics can enhance the experience, but an acceptance that they are not fully necessary: “…The architect is not bound  to   to exhibit structure; nor are we to complain of him for concealing it, any more than we should regret that the outer surfaces of the human frame conceal much of its anatomy; nevertheless, that building will generally be the noblest, which to an intelligent eye discovers the great secrets of its structure…” Pugin had lamented the overlyembellished tectonic ornament of the later Gothic, but Ruskin is somewhat more amenable, 37: “…so long 280

as we see the stones and joints, and are not deceived as to the points of support in architecture, we may rather praise than regret the dexterous artifices…” artifices…” The elaborate artifices of Gothic architecture architecture are a 36: “legitimate appeal appeal to the imagination.” This shows a favor of the “what” over the “how. “how.””

 

 

93

 been largely eradicated, so we should feel little concern with duplicating hand work with machines, as the machine will not be stealing any medieval-tradition artisan’s livelihood. Owen Jones (1809-1874) and his 1856 The Grammar of Ornament  show  show just how much the Victorians loved ornament. His use of motifs from al alll corners of the British Em Empire pire exacerbated the problem of cultural selection; exotic revival styles, as searches for romantic novelty, would later form excellent excellent ammunition against the eclecticism eclecticism of ornament. As a work, The Grammar of Ornament makes an almost scientific inquiry into ornament’s techniques, attempting to discover ‘laws’,282 and categorizing itit as nobody ever hhad ad before. Unfortunately, in the modern mindset, as soon as something achieves a category, it becomes history, and to be ‘of the age,’ obviously obviously one cannot use anyth anything ing from history. Jones, though a progressive, progressive, does  believe that the past can and should should be utilized ttoo inspire new ornaments ornaments..283 Gombrich describes Jones’ importance as one of the first to discuss the psychology of human perception in relation to ornament.284  How the eye reacts to certain geometries of lines receives investigation: “gradual enrichment leads to that ‘harmony of form’ which he finds in the ‘proper balancing and contrast of the straight, the inclined, and the curved…” 285  How to smoothly transition the eye between curves receives a consideration which “look[s] forward to the empirical work of Gestalt   psychology.” The goal is to create a pattern where “the eye has now no longer any want that could be supplied.” 286  Color, too, receives study under his ‘propositions’ 14-34.287  While specific ppreferences references for color will always remain a mat matter ter of taste,

282

 Owen Jones, The Grammar of Ornament . DK Publishing, In., New York, 2001. 18: “In the following chapters I have endeavored to establish establish these main facts,facts,- First. That whenever any style style of ornament commands universal admiration, it will always be found to be in accordance with the laws which regulate the distribution distribution of form in nature. nature. Secondly. That however varied varied the manifestations manifestations in accordance accordance with these laws, the leading ideas on which they are based are very few.” (his 37 propositions) 283  Jones, 19. “To attempt to build up theories of art, or to form a style, independently of the past, would be an act of supreme folly. It would be at once to reject tthe he experience and accumulated accumulated knowledge of thousands of years. On the contrary, we should regard as our inheritance all the successful labors of the  past, not blindly blindly following them, them, but employing employing them simply as guides to find the the true path.” 284  Gombrich, 51, 53.

285

 Gombrich, 53.  Gombrich 54. 287  Jones, 25-27. 286

 

94

 

 – some of his propositions seem rather didactic – certain useful observations regarding the use of contrast to modify the appearance of shapes are recorded.288  Jones’ intent was far from providing a sourcebook for copying.289  By providi providing ng his tome of ornament and education in its use, he was attempting to provide nothing less than the raw materials for a new style of architecture: We therefore think we are justified in the belief that a new style of ornament may be  produced independently of a new style of architecture; and, moreover, that it would be one of the readiest means of arriving arriving at a new style. The chief features of a buil building ding which form a style are, first, the means of support; secondly the means of spanning space  between the supports; and, thirdly, the formation of the roof. It is the decoration of these structural features which gives the characteristics of style, and they all follow so naturally one from the other, that the invention of one will command the rest.290   This rather novel-sounding idea of inventing a new style backwards, from the ornament rather than the structural system, receives a defense from Jones: Some will probably say, a new style of architecture must first be found, and we should be  beginning at the wrong end to commence with ornament. We do not think so. We have already shown that the desire for works of ornament is co-existent with the earliest attempts of civilization of every people, and that architecture adopts ornament, does not create it.291 [italics added] These observations have huge consequence, as a large part of the modern movement’s effort will  be to replace historic ornamental effect with elaborations of form or structure; the ornament cannot be adopted for simple enrichment. Once again this returns returns to the how or tthe he what – does the flow of ornamental expression come from the arbitrary demands of the structure of the age (the ‘how’ of construction), or does it come from the sentiments of the people of the age (the ‘what’ of desire)? desire)? Perhaps both? Jones may bbee optimist optimistic, ic, as it is hard to imagine how tectonic ornament, playing such an important role in all historic styles, could be derived by the application of patterned ornament, as no no patterned ornament hhas as anything to do w with ith construction. But his  patterns will be found applied, multiplied dozens of times in scale, to many structural framing  plans of the 20th century [5.2].

288 Jones, 289

26-27. Jones acknowledges his debt here to to a Mons. Chevruil.  Jones, 17. “I have ventured to hope that, in thus brining into immediate juxtaposit juxtaposition ion the many forms of  beauty which every style style of ornament presents, I might might aid in arresting arresting that unfortunate unfortunate tendency of our

time to be content with copying…” again on 476. 290  Jones, 475. 291  Jones, 473.

 

 

95

[5.2] 1856 Grammar of Ornament  patterns  patterns with various structural plans and sections, including: Nervi’s   1952 Gatti Wool factory, Anatole de Baudot’s paper project project salle  salle des fêtes, fêtes, c. 1910., Jorn Utzon’s 1964 Zurich Opera House, Herman Hertzberger’s Centraal Beheeer, Louis Kahn’s 1952 Yale University art Gallery, and a partial plan of Victor Horta’s 1897 Maison 1897 Maison du Peuple. Peuple.

Jones claims that the “means of varying these structural features [column and beam versus arch] has been exhausted,” 292 implying that varying ornament would be the only recourse. Gombrich rightly points out that as Jones was writing in 1856, such a statement was blatantly untrue,293  the steel frame and concrete frame were not yet standardized. Today, however, the modern steel frame and concrete frames appear to be the standard structural systems, which have remained relatively unchanged since early in the 20 th  century. From figu figure re 5.2, it seems as though Jones was right, architectural structure has adopted ornament in many cases, but at a scale larger than he might have iintended. ntended. Jones condemns this practice w with ith his echo of Pugin: “Construction should should be decorated. Decoration should nnever ever be purposely constru constructed.” cted.”294  One more English writer’s stance must be described, illustrating the extent to which the 19th century thought of architecture architecture in terms of ornament. Architectural critic Robert Kerr noted noted

292

 Jones, 475.  Gombrich, 55. 294 Vegas is all about.  Jones, 23. This is what Learning what Learning from Las Vegas is 293

 

96

 

four ways of creating architecture via the integration of ornament and structure in his 1869 lecture to the Royal Institute of British Architects:295 1.  2.  3.  4. 

Structure Ornamented (Venturi’s term: “decorated shed”) Ornament Structuralized Structure Ornamentalized Ornament Constructed (Venturi’s term: “duck”)

Kerr’s four points produce a powerful a-stylistic system for categorizing architecture by its use of ornament. Kerr himself is somewhat restrictiv restrictive, e, classifying a work within one one category based on the initial conception of the architect, but in many cases the architect’s intent might not be known,296  and it is apparent that in all highly-admired works of architecture much overlap  between categories occurs. For instance, the Parthenon fits ‘structure ornamented’ with its sculptures adorning the tympanum and frieze, and its columns fall within ‘structure ornamentalized.’ Frank Lloyd Wri Wright’s ght’s prairie hhouses ouses for the most part fall uunder nder ‘ornament structuralized’ due to the conception of their plan forms, and ‘structure ornamented’ due to the application of his ‘efflorescence.’ August Perret’s elegant concrete frames with applied orn ornament ament meet points 1. and and 3. Gothic Cathedral Cathedralss manage to meet all four  categories.  categories. Fundamentally we learn from Kerr that if ornament is not applied to a building, it shall migrate into the building’s form or structure, thus radically inflating the ornament’s scale and  potential comprehensibility (shortly, Otto Wagner will make sensitive comments about the importance of scale), especially if the ‘ornament constructed’ is rendered in an abstract fashion. We can also see that these four options can be simplified as a tension between the order of architectural aesthetics or symbolism and the order of ‘plain honest straightforward building’ (the age old theory versus practice). practice). Option one allows aesth aesthetics etics be applied to buildi building, ng, options two and three integrate aesthetics and building to a degree, and option four completely bends building

295

 The four of ornamental expression defined by Kerr are discussed by Thomas in his “The Grammar ofmodes Ornament/Ornament as Grammar”, and Peter Collins in Changing Ideals inBeeby Modern  Architecture, 125-127  Architecture, 125-127 296  Ornament structuralized, for instance, depends on an initial diagram generating the form of the building.

It might be possible to classify Eisenman’s School of Design, Art, Architecture and Planning within point 2., depending on how much the diagram diagram actually drove the end result result.. Since we do not know for sure, the  building could fall fall under the more more sculptural point 4, or even point 1.

 

 

97

to the whim whim of the architect’s aestheti aestheticc or symboli symbolicc choice. The practical adv advantages antages and disadvantages of each approach will be discussed in chapter 7. The slightly different meaning of the word ‘structure’ between points 2 and 3 should be clarified. In 2, structure mean meanss formal structure (wh (which ich can includ includee the real  structure  structure within the  poche of the plan). In 3, structure means the real load-bearing structure. ‘Ornament formalized’ for point 2 might have been more clear; a small distinction. distinction. It can also be noted that Kerr, writing in 1869, did not anticipate environmental control systems being utilized for ornamental effects. Because such systems, while functional, are not absolutely necessary (much like ornament, HVAC systems are designed to keep us happy, if not in psychological comfort, in physical comfort) rather than introduce a fifth category, ducts, pipes, louvers and such exploited for ornamental purposes shall be considered considered under point 1. The classification offered by this thesis, thesis, using the division between the concepts of applied vs. integral, semantic vs. tectonic, patterned vs. free, and representational vs. non-representational, still does not avoid all overlap; but it offers a slightly more broad approach than Kerr.

2. Viollet-le-Duc

While Jones busied himself with applicative ornament, Eugene-Emanuel Viollet-Le-Duc 297  (1814-1879) was hard at work coming from the other end of the problem, attempting to find a metal structural system “within the nature of the material” 298 and hoping the new ornament would suggest itself. While he remained a paper architect in this regard, regard, many who followed attempted to execute his theories, and Henri Labrouste, had already achieved his goal; a rare case where  practice precedes theory.299  But Labrou Labrouste ste had remained too closely w within ithin th thee classical vocabulary with his libraries to achieve the desired holy grail of a completely new style; however of the 19th century they were, they were still classical.

297

 Texts relied relied upon for VLD include: Frampton, 49-54. Summerson, Heavenly Summerson, Heavenly Mansions, Mansions, 135-158, Crook, 85-88. Collins, Changing Ideals, 162-164, 213-217. And M.F. Hearn, The Architectural Theory of

Viollet-le-Duc: Readings and Commentary, Viollet-le-Duc: Commentary, 205-214. 298  Frampton, 51, quoting from Entrentiens. from  Entrentiens.   299  Frampton, 51.

 

98

 

Summerson argues for a hidden romanticism behind VLD’s reasoning: he “was the alchemist who produced a workable concept of rational architecture out of romantic archaeology [of Gothic].”300  Frampton states: “V “Viollet-le-Duc iollet-le-Duc was to adduce from the French twelth-century twelth-century Gothic a set of principles that were not that different from Pugin’s True Principles... Principles...””301  The difference is that Pugin was an associationist, VLD, in order to create a new new style,  style, could not be. In some ways this should sound not dissimilar to the situation of Laugier and Durand from the  previous chapter; Viollet, however, turns to metal for expression rather than the plan; the new materials are close enough now that they appear to be a possible way out from historicism. Viollet’s first significant employment was as a “Professor of Composition and Ornament at a small independent Ecole de Dessein in Paris.” 302  And indeed, hhee shows a great sensitivit sensitivityy to the ornament question, essentially re-stating Owen Jones in his 1863  Entrentiens sure l’Architecture: Does the architectural conception comprehend its ornamentation, or is the ornamentation an afterdesign of the architect? In other words, is the ornamentation ornamentation an integral part of of the edifice, or is it only a clothing more or less rich with which the edifice is covered when its shape has been determined? 303   As we have seen, Pugin had already allowed for ornament of both types (and the ‘clothing’ was not expected to be completely full-cover), and Viollet, in his historical explanation shows an appreciation for ornament’s semantic role, but ends in favor of a close structural relationship: In opinion…If the there best architecture that whose be divorced theour structure. is one thing isworthy of theornamentation architect’s bestcannot considerations, it isfrom the  perfect agreement between all the parts of his building, that correspondence between the case and what it contains – the frank expression outside of the arrangements within, not only in point of structure, but of ornamentation, which ought to be in close alliance with it.304  One can appreciate VLD’s less less authoritarian stan stance, ce, with ‘in our opinion opinion’’ and ‘ought.’ Such reserve will be short short lived. The inclusion of the word ‘frank’ marks the gentle beginning of

300

 Crook, 86., quoting Summerson.

301

302 Frampton,

49.137.  Summerson,  Hearn, 206. From Entrentiens, From Entrentiens, XV. Another vision of VLD’s conception of ornament is given by François Loyer in Art in Art Nouveaux Architecture, Architecture, 104: “Ornament is seen not only as a means of illustrating

303

the structure, but also as a symbolic indication of the function of the building linked, more generally, to a vision of the world based on the scientific worship of nature.” 304  Hearn, 209…210

 

 

99

something that Peter Collins has discussed related to the changing conception of the artist.305  “Frank,” “sincere” expression of ornamentation changes the whole relationship between the client and the architect – the goal becomes to satisfy the architect’s conception of ‘how’ it should be  produced. So what did VLD’s proposed iron architecture and accompanying ornament actually look like? He provides some illustrations in his Entrentiens his  Entrentiens [5.6]. He wants to be understood that “my  purpose is simply to suggest to our younger professional brethren the proper method for  proceeding in the search for novel elements of structure…”306  Jones had had give givenn up with the  pursuit of “varying these structural features”, but Viollet sees it as the only means of finding the necessary new forms. At the market hall what are essentially banded classical columns cast in iron are set at sixty degrees to bear a large girder, which terminates at the facade with a slight-looking metal saddle. The saddle in turn carries the springers fo forr massive stone arches, which carry th thee  building’s upper story walls and roof.307  At the street corn corner, er, the façade pays homage ttoo associations with an ornamental gothic-style column and capital.308  In th thee shado shadows ws un underneath, derneath, tectonic ornament in the form of floral bosses can be seen lining the major girder, each probably meant to express the ends of fasteners used to build up the major beam from separate parts. Exposing the system of brick vaults would equate today with leaving the concrete slab or corrugated metal decking exposed from below, below, showing VLD’s ‘sincere’ expression. expression. There is no directly message-bearing semantic ornament, only some a-tectonic enrichment in the form of the decoratively treated glass canopy-edge and the floral scroll work carved around the upper story arch. The tectoni tectonicc canopy brac brackets kets become an item tthat hat overlaps between semanti semantics cs and

305

 Collins, Changing Ideals, Ideals, 248-249. “The sincere architect is the architect who designs a building the way he believes it should be designed, and not just the way his client or the public will most readily accept it.” Collins also notices notices this in the writings of VLD. 306

 Hearn,seek 237.it Entrentiens,XII. 234: 237. Entrentiens,XII.  234: “ifall wethe would architecture of our times… we must certainly no longer by mingling stylesinvent of thethat past, but by relying onown novel principles of structure.” 307  Hearn, 236-237.

308

 The column is cropped out of [5.6], but is present in Entrentiens in  Entrentiens.. The dress of the persons depicted in in th the rendering also seems strangely medieval (I am not aware of 19  century French fashion, but it seems out of place).

 

100

 

tectonics; they are truly structural, but are rendered to a point where they provide enrichment, even becoming representational with metallic flowers helping carry the glass.

[5.3, 5.4] VLD 1863 Entrentiens 1863 Entrentiens market  market hall, and Hector Guimard, 1895 Ecole 1895 Ecole du Sacré Coeur.  Coeur. 

At the market hall, VLD’s rendering appears to be a massive effort to avoid a typical historic arcade which, had it been used, would have only used 3 vertical columns rather than four canted columns. columns.

Pugin had discussed ornament that grows from the “constru “construction ction and

extremely   inconvenient lengths for the purpose of convenience,” but what VLD does is go to extremely achieving a non-traditional non-traditional appearance. For convenience of const construction ruction – and also th thee nature of a material given to compression and under gravity – vertical columns make a lot of rational sense,  but they would not be new new.. Because the canted members would on only ly experience compressio compression, n, a solid stone canted column could have achieved the same effect (Gaudi will prove this with his out-of-plumb masonry columns – some of which are even built up from small units309). However,  building a stone column of drums would be difficult at sixty degrees; so Viollet does at least reveal one of the more technical differences between iron and stone with his canted columns: the impossibility of constructing a canted stone column of drums beyond a certain angle, something which, though true, seems of marginal interest.

309

 Colonia Güell chapel, and also at Sagrada Familia.

 

 

101

Viollet’s younger professional brethren answered his call, Hector Guimard will build Viollet’s canted columns, somewhat modified to accommodate reality,310 at the 1895  Ecole du Sacré Coeur [5.4]. Guimard uses ornament to rend render er the canted columns in a sinewy, sinewy, muscular, anatomical fashion; yet also with traditional traditional fluting for roughly two-thirds two-thirds of the shaft. The base and capital plates plates are ornamented in an ambiguously muscular or vegetat vegetative ive manner. Directly above the column-beam connections, angles fasten to the beam’s web, strengthening the point of connection and giving the vague appearance of a triglyph, yet no member connects from behind. Tectonic expression might have gone farther by connecting a single plate underneath each of the  brick vault’s I-sections to represent a response to the major accumulation of load at those points. Overall, Sacré Coeur   makes makes an extremely non-traditional composition, tectonically rendered and structurally ‘honest;’ aside from some enrichment at street level in the form of elaborately wrought hand rails, there is no purely semantic ornament at all on the building.

Viollet’s second build-able fantasy, his proposed apartment building [5.8], adopts metal into the traditional half-timber method of frame construction.311  Metal’s greater strength allows for thinner members, creating a different aesthetic effect, but quite analogous with the old method of construction wherein the real structural timbers were often arranged for patterned patterned ornamental effect. The simple triangular frame arrangement 310

 It would seem that VLD asks four wrought-iron w rought-iron plates, each roughly 6” wide (and probably 1/2” thick at most), to carry: 1. a 2’ thick masonry wall, double-story height, and 2. half the roof. Also note that the  perimeter columns, columns, which carry the the above load plus an additional large large floor load, have the same diameter diameter of the interior columns, which only bear a floor load. If the canted columns act as ‘two-force members’ (purely in compression or tension along the axial line of the member), which they appear to, the tie-rods  between them - which which appear to be the the justification justification for the ornamental ornamental banding - are completely unnecessary, unless they are left-over from the construction construction process. Guimard’s version will dispense with the tie rods, instead using an ornamental, hand-height, non-structural non-structural railing between the columns. Other inconsistencies with VLD’s structure include a beam running longitudinally underneath, parallel with the  brick vaults, which is not shown in his section and would would be completely completely unnecessary. The glass canopy system appears as though it might work, but a bracket is not shown at the corner, leaving the glass to support itself for a good distance. distance. Peter Collins has commented: commented: (214, Changing Ideals) “Unfortunately, however, his anxiety to discover new forms betrayed him into devising combinations of iron and masonry which no experienced building contractor would have countenanced for one moment, and into devising systems of triangulation which any engineer would have laughed to scorn.” Collins refers to his more famous Auditorium proposal. 311  See Larson, Gerald. “The Iron Skeleton Frame: Interactions Between Europe and the United States” Chicago Architecture 1872-1922, 1872-1922, ed. John Zukowsky. Prestel-Verlag and the Art Institute of Chicago,

Munich, 1987. 44-45: “The iron framework, reminiscent of traditional European half-timber construction, was enclosed with an infill of polychromed terracotta tiles, using the technique earlier employed in Bogardus’s shot towers and Badger’s grain elevators.”

 

102

 

here, however, suggests that the members are following a more structurally rational approach, while colorful glazed terra-cotta tiles in the spirit of Semperian carpets provide

[5.5, 5.6] Left: VLD, 1863 Entrentiens 1863 Entrentiens apartment  apartment building. Right: 1871-72 Jules Saulnier, the Menier chocolate factory. Metal frame finds expression simi similar lar to half-timber constructi construction. on.

the primary enriching ornament for the wall. wall. Artistic crafting of the ironwork ironwork around the windows and the shaping of the balconies provide additional enrichment. There is actually little in terms of tectonic ornament on the building, besides the detailed treatment of the metal corbels at the shop front and the adoption of the frame itself for a patterning effect. Using glazed masonry to enrich a façade will reach great heights in Vienna, but stringent building codes requiring thick masonry walls will suppress any expression of a metal frame on the exterior in most European cities. Yet again, at least one prime example of Viollet’s idea being achieved by another exists. The 1872 Menier chocolate factory by Jules Saulnier [5.6] shows a unique blend of tectonic and semantic ornament used to achieve an extremely festive piece of

industrial architecture. Polychromatic brick patterns take a cue from the enclosing frame

 

 

103

and form a rich texture of diam diamonds onds and other figures. At the juncti junctions ons of the frame,  black bricks heighten the sense of connection that oc occurs curs by appearing to help h elp stitch the iron members together; the simple enrichment suggestively heightens the drama of the construction. Over the main entrance, a stylized ‘M’ figures as a primary semantic ornament, celebrated with a wealth of colorful glazed tiles. If one were to venture into the interior, the child’s fantasy of a magical chocolate production would evaporate; the interior lacks ornament altogether, making the factory’s exterior a whimsical advertisement. Let us briefly examine two of VLD’s  Entrentiens  Entrentiens   pages which attempt to offer some ornamental expression of metal which are to inspire architects:

[5.7] Violet-le-Duc, 1863 Entrentiens 1863 Entrentiens.. Attempts at tectonic tectonic metal ornament. ornament.

 

104

 

For the compressive elements the ball-and-socket connections bestow an almost anatomical feeling. It appears as though old method methodss of ornamentation are used for the various new parts; a mutated classical capital, an almost Egyptian-like bundled reed canted column, and a leafy cast corbel setting block. block. This is romantic ornament, ornament, with soft organic materi materials als receiving huge loads. Angled member C, though organi organic, c, does use its ornament to greater express its stress with the repeated lines in the direction of the load and the encrustation forming an outward bulge, like flexing sinew. sinew. For the truss, the primary structural structural parts remain identifiable identifiable as industrial angles mechanically fastened together, while the chords of the truss create an organic playground foreshadowing the heights of Art Nouveau fancy. Ornamental expressi expression on of metal hhad ad been developed before this in several English greenhouse buildings and railway stations (and Labrouste’s 1838-1850 St. Geneviève); Viollet is certainly not the only one working on this, but he brings the question into the realm of widely-read theory.312  The various various proponents of A Art rt  Nouveaux will thoroughly thoroughly explore this kkind ind of ornament. The real question to ask in relation to VLD is what his view on semantics was; did he cut the cord, or did he retain Pugin’s “propriety” ornament? Looking at his projected ‘ideal mansion’  perspective in  Entrentiens  Entrentiens,, while not overly-bedecked with ornaments, faces do peer from keystones, statues perch on a port-cochere’s piers, and stone banners in relief drape from the top of a parapeted gable. The usual repertoire of masonry tectonic tectonic ornament is also present; quoins, quoins,  belt courses, rustic courses, drip edges, keystones, and so on. What Viollet probably wants us to appreciate are the slim lines lines of the arched, apparentl apparentlyy metal port-cochere. The semantic element of ornament as an expression of class is grudgingly acknowledged.313  His schemes for ornamenting a table and a set of doors in Entrentiens in Entrentiens certainly  certainly surpass mere tectonics.314  While Viollet was instrumental in beginning the hunt for new forms arising from new methods of construction he still maintained both of ornament’s major roles, but theoretically, a 312

 Frampton notes Botticher’s 1846in“The Principles the Hellenic and German of Building” Botticher discusses iron expression a manner “thatofanticipates Viollet-le-Duc” Viollet-le -Duc” Way and indeed, from 83-84. Frampton’s selection, selection, it appears that Botticher says most of the things VLD said 17 years earlier. VLD and

his adventurous renderings combined with written theory apparently win him the spot as more influential.  Hearn, 253, 263, and Summerson 139-140 show VLD was quite sensitive and aware of matters regarding politics and class. 314  Hearn, 211-213.

313

 

 

105

new tectonic ornament was of eminent eminent importance. What has driven tectoni tectonicc ornament before, as discussed at the Greek temples, was a desire to enhance the overall symbolism or function of the  building; for Viollet, tectonic ornament was not driven by any idea, but constituted part of a felt need to escape historicism.

3. Gottfried Semper and Otto Wagner

Gottfried Semper (1803-1879) and Otto Wagner (1841-1918) form a line of theoretical thought somewhat apart from the English and French theories, but aiming towards the same elusive goal: a unique modern style and accompanying ornament. Semper, like Viollet, does not actually actually build his theories,315 but Wagner attempts to interpret some of his ideas and carry them forth into built form. Semper immediately begins his 1851 The Four Elements of Architecture with Architecture with a statement that greatly differentiates him from Viollet-le-Duc, among many others: …the store of architectural forms has often been portrayed as mainly conditioned by and arising from the material, yet by regarding construction as the essence of architecture we, while believing to liberate it from false accessories, have thus placed it in fetters. Architecture, like its great teacher, nature, should choose and apply its material according to the laws conditioned by nature, yet should it not also make the form and character of its creations dependent on the ideas embodied in them, and not the material? 316   With other early moderns surrendering themselves to ‘the nature of the materials’ in order to decide the design process and form, this puts Semper on the side of the ‘what,’ the eidos. eidos.   A  beginning such as this allows Semper to take what can only be described as one of the more unique positions positions on architecture ever gest gestated. ated. Like Alberti before him, he bbreaks reaks architecture into elements, and like Laugier, a primitive hut takes a decisive role – but with a hipped roof. Unlike Laugier, who disapproved of ornament, Semper will quickly reach ornament, making one wonder if he like Jones slightly after him considers ornament – in the form of ancient colorful space-dividing carpets – to be the solution to the modern problem of style.

315

  Art Art Nouveaux Architecture, 12. Architecture, 12. Gombrich, 47.

316

 Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings. Writings. trans. Harry Francis Mallgrave, Wolfgang Wolfgang Herrmann. Cambridge University University Press, New York, 1989. 102. He does follow this selection with the common sense notion that the material can and ought to be related to the form; but the material properties do not  constitute  constitute the driving force. Also, see Mallgrave introduction, introduction, 19.

 

 

106

 

The four elements or motives317 include the “moral  “moral ” hearth, and the roof, enclosure and

mound. Despite the seemingl seeminglyy structural nature of these elemen elements, ts, Semper’s final expression is is anything but, as he quickly distinguishes the enclosure, provided by a hanging carpet, as highly important.318  He identifies the craft related to the space-di space-dividing viding enclosu enclosure, re, weaving, as one of the oldest ornamental arts.319  Walls therefore achieve a pri primordial mordial connection ttoo the most ancient decorations; the Greeks petrified their timber construction, but for Semper, masonry walls are  petrified primordial space-dividers, carpets, the “true and legitimate” representatives representatives   of the wall.320  Semper then interprets architectures architectures of many cultu cultures res within this m model; odel; according to Frampton, he will go so far as to re-interpret the Parthenon’s entablature ornaments as devices for  pinning down an ancient tent fabric.321  A sectio sectionn on practical app applications lications concludes with  prescriptions for how semantic messages related to social customs and the character of the  building must be be communicated on the surface.322  Semper’s efforts make a very heartfelt attempt to bring forward an idea rather than a turn to method, but since he evades the question of structural expression with his “invisible structure,”323  a problem that architects felt had to be resolved, this will lead to the Bauhaus’s

317

 Semper, 24. Joseph Rykwert introduction. “Semper conceived them not as material elements of forms,  but as “motives” “motives” or “ideas,” as technical operations operations based in the applied applied arts.” 318  Semper, 103. “Thus I seem to stand without the support of a single authority when I assert that the carpet wall plays a most important role in the general history of art.” 319

 Semper, o ldest ornaments werethe either derived or knotting materials or were easily 103-104. produced “The on theoldest potter’s wheel with finger on softfrom clay.entwining [Potters wheel are rather sophisticated machines, it is unlikely they were used. Tattooing and small carved ornaments, however, might have pre-dated knotted ornaments – though it is impossible to tell]” 320  Semper, 103-104. “Wickerwork, the original space divider, retained the full importance of its earlier meaning, actually or ideally, when later the light mat walls were transformed into clay tile, brick, or stone walls. Wickerwork was the essence of the wall.” wall.” 321  Frampton, 87: “According to Semper, this would explain the transposition of textile motifs into the  polychromatic ornamental ornamental dressings of the triglyphs triglyphs and metopes in in the Doric order. Contrary to Abbe Laugier, Semper did not feel that such forms arose from the petrification of timber construction, of beam ends and rafters, but rather from features used to tie down the textile fabric of the roof.” This should remind us of Le Corbusier’s re-interpretation re-interpretation of the Parthenon to serve his own theoretical agenda as an assemblage of pure forms in his Towards a New Architecture. Architecture. 322  Semper, 127. “2. The climate and even the customs of a country must be considered in the selection of the color key and the subject matter, and nothing new may be sought which is not, in a manner of speaking, already present in the 3. Theofpainting be suited to and emphasize theincluded. character of the  building in general general andmotive. the purpose its partsshould in particular.” particular. ” Sculpture can also also be 323  Semper, 104. “…Hanging carpets remained remained the true walls, the vis visible ible boundaries of space. The often

solid walls behind them were necessary for reasons that had nothing to do with the creation of space; they were needed for security, for supporting a load, for their permanence, and so on. …Even where building solid walls became necessary, the latter were only the inner, invisible structure hidden behind the true and legitimate representatives representatives of the wall, the colorful woven carpets.”

 

 

107

accusation of ‘lying ‘lying facades.’ However, a few buil buildings dings constructed in Vienna seem to follow the spirit of Semper’s writings [5.8-5.11].

[5.8] Otto Wagner, 1898-99, 38 and 40 Linke Wienzeile.

[5.9] Wagner, 1898 Majolica House

[5.10] Hans Schlecta, Schlecta, façade drawing, 1900. 1900. [5.11] Max Fabiani, Fabiani, Portois & Fix Apartment building, building, 1900.

Two of the above buildings were designed by Otto Wagner, the next figure for discussion. Wagner was directly influ influenced enced by Sem Semper, per, and Debra Schafter notes another  progressive ornament-related text he was familiar with, Eduard van der Nüll’s 1845 Suggestions regarding the artistic relationship of ornament to raw form. 324  Botticher’s distinction between ‘core-form’ and ‘art-form,’ also influential on Wagner, seems close to the distinction of tectonic

324

 Schafter, Debra. The Order of Ornament, the Structure of Style. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 131. Schafter says the text had three points: 1. use materials logically, 2. rational design and construction, and 3. the sensitive and artistic ennoblement of constructional form.

 

108

 

and semantic ornament.325  Looking at his work, iitt is obvi obvious ous that W Wagner agner put some serious thought into the question of a modern ornament from both, as Frampton observes, a tectonic and an a-tectonic direction;326 and it is impossible impossible to judg judgee either as more or less successful. In fact, Wagner ran the complete gambit: eclectic ‘Empire’ historicism, Semperian ‘carpet’ a-tectonics, and finally his own tectonically suggestive system of bolted revetment.327  He vehemently rejected the associational qualities of historicism, forcing himself to find a method of expression within modern techniques, but unlike Semper, Wagner has the “courage” to carry it out.328  His treatise, the 1896329   Modern Architecture Architecture,, has been boldly described by Harry Mallgrave as “the first manifesto of modern architecture”.330  Mallgrave summarizes the three overriding themes of the text: “…a plea for simplicity in the accommodation of modern needs, the artistic and ethical ruin of eclecticism, and the demand for a new style based on present technologies and methods methods of construction.” Like Viollet, the new style wi will ll somehow arise from the construction; “…new purposes and new materials give birth to new methods of construction, which in turn gradually acquire artistic value and lead to new art-forms.” 331  Because Wagner’s  buildings for the most part remain within old materials and old purposes, (artistically clad load bearing brick for churches, banks, and apartment buildings in a traditional urban setting) he was  perhaps premature, but unlike Ruskin, he shows an enthusiasm for exploring machine ornament unlike anybody had before. A highly articulated skin produced produced from small pieces of machine-cut stone becomes his primary means of surface expression.

325

 Wagner, Mallgrave introduction, 32. “Each part was conceived as having a structural or constructional function (its core-form) that was dressed in a sophisticated artisti artisticc veil (its art-form) articulating its  purpose.” Tectonic elements, such as columns, dressed with matronly matronly robes/fluting, robes/fluting, fit this idea idea perfectly,  but purely semantic, semantic, non-constructional non-constructional sculpture such as the figures in in the tympanum would fall by the wayside, unless they are considered as dressing for the structure at large. 326  Frampton, 340. Wagner in his early career was a historic historic eclectic, making hi hiss experience with architecture about as full and varied as possible. 327  Otto Wagner,  Modern Architecture, Architecture, int. Harry Francis Mallgrave. Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, Santa Monica, 1988. Mallgrave introduction, 8, 25-26, 28. 328  Wagner, Mallgrave introduction, 17, 33. Semper “lacked the courage” to carry his ideas out. 329

330 Subsequent

editionsintroduction, in 1898, 1902,  Wagner, Mallgrave 27.and 1914.  Wagner, Mallgrave introduction, 31. Wagner, 83: “Every composition is essentially influence influencedd by the

331

material to be used in the construction and the technology to be employed. …the composition must always conform to the material and to the technology, and not the reverse. Therefore composition must clearly clearly reveal the material of construction and the technology used. This is true whether it concerns the  presentation of a monumental building building or the design design of the smallest smallest decorative object.”

 

 

109

Wagner’s comments in his treatise show an acute level of understanding of how form, ornament, and the human eye result in a sensuous architectural experience: The architect must also place great importance on the relation of the statue to his  building… It makes no difference in this regard whether these statues sculpturally adorn a square, a building, or a room. …if the scale is too large or too small, iitt will have… adverseaneffect. …Arelation similarcan correlat correlation exists bbetween etween ornament form, where improper alsoion have a very harmful effect onand thearchitectural total appearance. The Modern Movement proceeds impressionistically in the use of sculptural and ornamental decoration, and employs only those lines whose definite visual effect can be  predicted. As a result, there is in the new style a merging (convergence) of tectonic and sculptural form, a minimal use of sculptural decoration in general, an objection to the arrangement of portrait statues as tectonic building elements, a clarity of ornamental form, and so many other things.332   When composing, the architect has to place great importance on the effect of perspective, that is, he must organize the silhouette, the massing, the projections of the cornice, the distortions, the sculptural line of the profile and ornaments in such a way that they appear  properly emphasized form a SINGLE VANTAGE POINT. This point will, of course, be that location where the work can be viewed most frequently, most easily, and most naturally. …Buildings onand narrow streets, therefore, mustthan be profiled differently and  present flatter ornaments a more delicate structure buildingsvery on broad streets… One of the attributes peculiar to human perception is that in examining any work of art the eye seeks a point of rest or concentration [Owen Jones said ‘repose’]; otherwise a  painful uncertainty or aesthetic aesthetic uneasiness occurs. occurs. …333   Wagner’s most important important comments are those concern concerning ing scale. The size of his small pieces of marble bolted to the building are chosen not based on how big the machine can efficiently make them, but are calculated for satisfying perceptual effect on the observer, based on a feeling of what textural scale will avoid avoid ‘aesthetic uneasiness.’ This shows Wagner findi finding ng a subtle artistic 334

 blend between the ‘what’ of the final effect and the ‘how’ of the process.   Mies, for instance, when he cuts his marble block for the Barcelona Pavilion, will rely on the arbitrary initial size of the block to determine the size of the cladding, and even the space itself. 335  Kahn, too, follows the same idea when he becomes excited about making his building’s pieces as large as a crane 332

 Wagner, 84-85.  Wagner, 86-87, also, 88 and 89. 334  Wagner, 37. Mallgrave introduction. “[Peter] Haiko has termed this decorative artifice “symbolic functionalism,” in that the bolts represent the technological, economic, and time-saving attributes of this type of construction. It was the appearance, rather than the reality, upon which Wagner’s artist artistic ic conception was based.” 333

335

 Frampton, 171. recollection thematerials way in which hethe selected theof onyx coretoofinfluence the Barcelona Pavilion reveals the“His respect he felt forofall and for capacity nature the result. “Since you cannot move marble from the quarry in winter because it is still wet inside and would easily

freeze and break into pieces, pieces, we had to find dry material. Eventually, I found an onyx block of a cert certain ain size and since I only had the possibility of this block, I made the pavilion twice the height and then we developed the plan.” Thus, ‘nature’ decides form via the choice of ornamental mat material erial and the extremely  peculiar restrictions restrictions imposed on handling it.

 

110

 

can feasibly place them;336  the arbitrary load a crane happens to be able to lift becomes the deciding factor in ornament-making. Because Wagner will not allow himself to use historical ornament, he must dispense with any device that might be recognized as a traditional tectonic means of expressing masonry construction, however much that means might be congruent with the bricks actually present in his  buildings (his American contemporary H.H. Richardson was thoroughly exploiting these historic techniques slightly slightly earlier). For instance, his Church ooff Steinhof [5.12-5.13] hhas as a large arch in what is actuality a thick brick bearing wall, but to express the arch’s method of construction something approaching the historic method of voussoirs with a keystone would inevitably appear. The skin, when it intersects the arch, is simply punched without any display of the significant constructional feat occurring und underneath. erneath. While he does not allow himself to expres expresss his openings in the wall at both his church and post office he does express how the building meets its foundations in a typical historic manner with a story of rustication (showing allegiance to tradition, and Semper’s ‘mound’). ‘mound’). At the church, the rough base sits uupon pon an even more rustic sub-base of rubble stone. He allows for thi this, s, as he notes: “The archi architect tect may dip into th thee full repository of traditional forms, but… he must adapt it to us and to the purpose by reshaping the form…”337  Though he rejects historic eclecticism, his projects do bear vestigial reminders ooff classicism, obviously most notably at his church, but also at his Post office and Savings bank’s [5.12-5.14], both of which have base, entablature, and cornice elements.

336

 Kahn, Essential Texts (Twombly),  Kahn, Essential Texts (Twombly), 251. “The architect says “Oh! They’re using a crane on my building. Isn’t that nice – so they can pick it up more easily,” never realizi realizing ng that the crane is a designer; that you can make something that’s twenty-five tons coming to something that’s twenty-five tons, and you can make a

 joint so magnificent, bec ause that is no too littlemuch thing.money, In fact,because if you’dit’sputsogold [or, apparently,that stripsthat’s of marble] into it, youbecause wouldn’t bejoint spending big. [or So, realization  joint-making, which is the beginning beginning of ornament ornament – because I do believe that the joint joint is the beginning beginning of

ornament – comes into being being again, you see. What you can lift as one thing should be som something ething that motivates the whole idea of making a single thing which comes together with another single thing.” 337  Wagner, 80. Also, on 85, he acknowledges the use of certain historic symbolic forms; domes, towers, quadrigae, columns, but pleads for moderation in their use.

 

 

111

  [5.12] Otto Wagner, 1905-7 Church of Steinhoff.

[5.13] Otto Wagner, 1904-6 Austrian Postal Savings Bank.

[5.13] Longitudinal Section.

[5.14] Interior.

At the Postsparkasse, Ruskin would not approve of Wagner forcing the workman to slavishly drive in the hundreds of façade bolts with no outlet for individual creativity, but Wagner contrasts this machine work with his large hand-produced sculptural work riding atop his forms. The supposedly tectonic bolts are actually quite unnecessary, 338  they celebrate the building by showing a much greater effort than if the simple traditional, hidden, method of keying the stones to the brick backup wall was used. A Ruskinian eye would perceive that, although although the tyrannous machine is present, the human involvement with the building has been doubled by the use of  bolts, and even better, that the efficiency of the machine has been defied for the sake of achieving

338

 Wagner, Mallgrave introduction, 37.

 

112

 

a fine textural quality. quality. A normal person person’s ’s eye appreciates a memo memorable rable and richly art articulated iculated façade that has something oddly non-traditional about it - which was exactly Wagner’s intent. The interior of the bank, in contrast with the exterior, has little immediately recognizable ornament. The bottom eight feet of the taperi tapering ng steel box columns (the ‘people’ ‘people’ zone) are treated a different color and detailed with ornamental plates and bolts, a height also carried by similarly  pinned white marble revetment on the walls of the space. Again, as on the exterior, the pins are completely unnecessary; ornamental. ornamental. The soft white glass barrel vault itself which dramatically shapes the space is also ornamental to a degree, the true weather-shedding skylight above takes a simpler gabled form. The lines of the mullio mullions ns in the vault are contin continued ued onto the beam they res restt on with an applied narrow plate accompanied by more bolts; enriching the surface of the long  beam. It was commented how Guimard could have used this device on the exterior beam of his  Ecole du Sacré Coeur , but he did did not – Wagner does. Though th these ese small int intersections ersections of mullions are expressed, the major intersections of column and beam, beam and wall, are not celebrated with any tectonic tectonic ornament. A simple pattern of squ squares ares breaks up the floor surface, the major lines of which flow fro from m the column gri grid. d. A delicate stenci stencill pattern of rectang rectangles les accents the lines of doors doors and openings openings,, and follows the top line of the white marble. The ornament most commented is undoubtedly the cylindrical heating elements elements.. Wagner here,  possibly for the first time, celebrates mechanical systems with a machine aesthetic rather than a floral or organic application application of the type often found on on steam radiators. The stacks are carefully ordered into the composition of the building, occurring on the column grid and creating lines in the floor pattern; and are made to be exactly the same height as the marble wall paneling. Enriching bands on the bottom of the stacks are carried up to a line which matches the height of one of the breaks in the the wall revetment. On the interior, Wagner has has accomplished an almost  purely tectonic machine aesthetic, the only direct message-bearing applications are a clock and various necessary signage. Wagner’s exterior expression mostly involved brick walls clad with bolted revetment, but

at his Karlsplatze station he attempted to develop exterior frame expression [5.15].

 

 

113

[5.15] Otto Wagner, 1899-1900 Karlsplatz station.

 

By colorful enrichment and the use of an arch form, he has created an extremely grand gateway to the underground despite despite the building’s actual actual quite modest size. One is reminded of Alberti’s ‘pomp and finery’; the ornament here helps make the simple act of getting onto a train a memorable event. Even the soffit of the vau vault’s lt’s sheltering overhang receives polychromatic til tiles. es. In Wagner’s work, the primary semantic ornaments are segregated; sculptures rest as  punctuation atop form, rather than being integrated within niches or aedicular frames. Many  previous architects discussed have attempted to integrate the two kinds of ornament to achieve greater synthesis, but Wagner does not approve of such integration.339  This mig might ht be part of the  beginning of divorcing divorcing sculpture from build building; ing; first it sits on top top,, then when the building get getss too tall, the sculpture sculpture sits in th thee plaza in front. A secondary level of semantics occurs w within ithin Wagner’s tectonics. tectonics. Had the bolt-h bolt-heads eads at his bank been gil gilded, ded, as Wagner ddesired, esired,340  the tectonic device would have acquired the semantic dimension of richness; similar to De l’Orme’s tectonic devices of bands bands to express French nationa nationalism. lism. Except Wagner’s gilded hheads eads would  probably have been more readable, the sight of gold connotes a message more directly than a  band – De l’Orme was rather hopeful his bands would be read by the average observer as a uniquely French product. product. Wagner shows the viab viability ility of machine ornamen ornamentt and the importance

339

 Wagner, 85. He deplores the sculpture being too integrated with the building. “an objection to the arrangement of portrait statues as tectonic building elements.” 340  Wagner, Mallgrave introduction, 37.

 

 

114

of a detail-scale, but fundamentally, as his major buildings remain masonry wall construction, the great boogey man of metal frame expression goes unresolved.

4. Louis Sullivan

Akin to Semper, Louis Sullivan (1856-1924) was attempting to put forward a powerful idea rather than turn to a method based in materials or construction. He felt strongly enough about this idea to theme his autobiography aroun aroundd it rather than hims himself. elf. Through prose Rus Ruskinian kinian in richness, Sullivan makes clear what he thinks about ornament in his 1892 “Ornament in Architecture,” 1896 “Tall office building artistically considered,” 1901  Kindergarten Chats,341  Ornament . Like Wagner, associational historicism and finally his 1924 A 1924 A System of Architectural Ornament  repulses Sullivan; the the modern architect must find a new, free means of expression. A virile ego is important here; man’s powers342 of expression cannot be satisfied by servile imitation of others. Wagner found his new means of expression in a careful machine aesthetic, Sullivan finds an equally artistic result; a sensitive blend of form, structure, and ornament with a keen eye for the final effect on the observer 343 and displaying the character and function of the building, while allowing the artist to satisfy satisfy his own individ individuality uality with an indu indulgence lgence of surface ornament. It is important that the ornament, not the form, served as the means of individual 344  expression. The ornament, for Sullivan, formed the artist’s needed personal creative outlet, the fulfillment of ‘man’s powers,’ while the structure and form where derived from the perceived character and needs of the building: “to be lofty!”, so the form attempts to express loftiness with uninterrupted verticals. The ornament, although purely applied, attemp attempts ts to express the spiri spiritt of the form by 341

 The edition of Chats Chats quoted  quoted from is not the 1901 serial edition, but Kindergarten but Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1979, a reprint of the 1918 edition. Writings. 342 Powers.  Louis Sullivan, A Sullivan, A System of Architectural Ornament: According with a Philosophy of Man’s Powers. Eakins Press, New York, 1967. “In discussing man’s powers it is here and now postulated that they are congenital ; that they are not “gifts” received from any outer source, but are, more simply, and on reflection more obviously, phases or sub-activities of that integral solitary ego ego,, which, and alone, is the index of racial and individual identity.” 343

 Louis Sullivan, is theWritings, Just Subordination, Architectural Design, of Details to Mass?”  Kindergarten Chats“What and Other 183: “…asina factor in the total complex impression on the  beholder”

344

 Sullivan, “Ornament in Architecture” Chats and other Writings, 188: “…a decorated structure, harmoniously conceived, well considered, cannot be stripped of its system of ornament without destroying its individuality.” 189: “Mere difference difference in outward form does not constitute individuality. individuality.”” The 20th  century will attempt to use form to pursue individuality. 

 

 

115

“differential growth.”345  Whether or not the surface encrust encrustation ation actual actually ly does aid in the expression of loftiness is an open question, (while Gothic tectonic ornament certainly does heighten the sense of loftiness) but Sullivan did intend for the ornament to aid in the expression of the building’s character as well as mark the building as the product of an individual mind. There are many influences on Sullivan,346  including the already mentioned distant relationship from Durand’s compositional methods via the Ecole des Beaux-arts,347  but the English writer Christopher Dresser seems quite influential in forming Sullivan’s ideological understanding of ornament.348  While Rusk Ruskin in was obsessed w with ith the hand of the craftsman, Dresser appreciated ornament more as an emanation of the mind: It will be found that the amount of pleasure derivable from the contemplation of an ornament will be largely dependent upon the extent to which mind is embodied in it. Stephenson invested coal with a new interest when he told us that it was buried sun’s rays 349 and it is also strange and  –true a lump of man, heat and light! A strange this,works. yet true; that the while yet dead, speaksstatement through his   Dresser’s comment forms a development of some of his mentor Owen Jones’ statements, who

also understood ornament to be the best measure of care shown in the work 350 (and the mind and the hand go back to at least Alberti), but consider Dresser’s comment next to Sullivan:

345

 Sullivan, “Ornament in Architecture” 189. full quote: “If now we bring ourselves to close and reflective observation, how evident it becomes that if we wish to insure an actual, a poetic unity, the ornament should appear, not as something receiving the spirit of the structure, but as a thing expressing that spirit by virtue of differential growth.” 346

 See David Van Zanten, Sullivan’s City: The Meaning of Ornament for Louis Sullivan, Sullivan , ed. Wim de Wit’s  Louis Sullivan: The Function of Ornament , and Lauren S. Weingarden’s “Louis H. Sullivan’s Ornament 1872-1922.  and the Poetics of Architecture” A rchitecture” in Chicago Architecture 1872-1922.  347  David Van Zanten also notes how Sullivan’s compositional methods are influenced by Beaux-Arts training, Sullivan’s City, City, 10-11: “Behind the entire concept of elaborating a design through a sequence of graphic and intellectual moves lay the broader compositional strategies taught at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the geometric strategies framed by the architectural polymath E.-E. Viollet-le-Duc…” 348  Zanten, Sullivan’s City, 9-10. 349  Christopher Dresser, The Art of Decorative Design. American Design. American Life Foundation, Foundation, New York, 1977. 8. He continues on 9-10: “We glory in these works, but not because of the perfection of the drawing, for this is often defective, nor through any extraordinary handling of the colours, for in this respect also there is nothing calculated to command our interest, but because of the mind which they embody. As a rule, the greater the manifestation of mind in a work of art of any description, the more pleasure we derive from it; also, the absence mechanical labour in its construction tends to the same result. “Those arts,” says Sir Charles L.produced Eastlake,are generally themanual most worth which theofmental labour employed  pleasure are“are greatest, andconsidered in which the labour,inor labour labour whatever kind, is least and the apparent.” The play with the Albertian triangle triangle here weights mind over la labor, bor, with no emphasis on the

“inherent property.” 350  Jones, 472: “By the ornament of a building we can judge more truly of the creative power which the artist has brought to bear upon upon the work. The general proportions of the building building may be good, the mouldings may be more or less accurately copied from the most approved model; but the instant that

 

116

 

“…every building is the image of a man whom you do not see.” see.”351 [A building is the] “outpouring of a copious, direct, large and simple mind.”352   While Sullivan does not ever directly equate ornament   to an expression of mind in a single sentence, but he does believe ornament raises a building up from a ‘trivial’ level into the realm of 353

true art.   The idea of poetry plays plays a strong role in in Sullivan’s writin writings. gs. He says, for instance, tthat hat “the architect is one kind of poet, and his work one form of poetry.” 354  He reveal revealss wh what at poe poetry try Chats apprentice: actually consists of in another important statement to his young Chats  apprentice: “You are not clever enough as yet to be disingenuous with words; but I warn you that ultra-shiftiness, supercunning, is the basis of fallacy. fallacy. In truth, it is the basis of much ppoetry.” oetry.”355  A fl flexible exible conception of poetic truth allows Sullivan to carry out acts that will disgruntle structural rationalists, notably the Wainwright building’s building’s use of false piers between each of the the real piers. In such use, Sullivan approaches the classical use of ornament in relation to structure; the pilasters are used ornamentally to express express   solidity, and the order selected expresses character; Sullivan has no concern for ‘truthful’ structural expression, his ornamental piers are used to express the character of loftiness. Sullivan does not call tthe he piers ornaments though though,, for Sullivan such a manipulation manipulation would be called form; his ornament is always applied. Regarding semantics and tectonics, Sullivan certainly cannot be said to be a tectonically expressive architect. His ornament also does not have any direct   semantic messages; it only carries the basic message of enrichment, enrichment, a glorification of of function. It appears that only one ooff his buildings, the Union Trust Building in Chicago, 356  did he include large representational

ornament is attempted, we see how far the architect is at the same time the artist. It is the best measure of the care and refinement bestowed upon the work.” 351  Sullivan, Chats, 24. 352  Sullivan, Chats Chats,, 30. Sullivan here refers directly to Richardson’s Marshall Fields Wholesale store. 353  Sullivan, “Ornament in Architecture” 190: “Few works can stand the test of close, business-like analysis  – they are soon emptied. emptied. But no analysis, however however sympathetic, persistent or profound, profound, can exhaust a truly great work of art. For the qualities that make it thus are great not mental only, but psychic, and therefore signify expression andit embodiment indiof individuality. viduality. Now, if thiswhen spiritual and to emotional quality the is a highest noble attribute when resides in theof mass a building, it must, applied a virile and synthetic scheme of ornamentation, raise this at once from the level of triviality to the heights of dramatic

expression.” 354  Sullivan, Chats Chats,, 141. 355  Sullivan, Chats Chats,, 42. 356  Louis Sullivan:  Sullivan: The Function of Ornament , 102.  See Louis  See

 

 

117

sculptures: full-story full-story tall win winged ged lions, each bearing a large crest. Otherwise, he limit limitss his directly semantic ornament to simple signage telling the observer the name of the building.

5. Conclusion

With Jones and others studying the psychology and perception of ornament, Pugin making explicit the conceptual break between tectonic and semantic ornament, Alois Reigl rigorously tracking its history in his 1893 Stilgrafen Stilgrafen,, and Robert Kerr realizing the various methods and scales of its application, ornament seems to have reached a near full understanding in the 19 th  century. The most important product of the 19th century comes in the form of the new metal frame structural system. The new material compels architects to seek seek new forms with a new ornament. We have seen how changes in material and structure did not pose a problem for other cultures,  but several combining factors in the 19th  century pushed pushed architects to their limits. In a society where an awareness of history 357 leads to the teaching of art history for the first time 358 (implying each generation must take its place in the succession of styles, if only for the art historian to be able to categorize us later), accompanied with a greater demand to be ‘rational,’ with exposure to other cultures making the question of ‘style’ ever more complicated,359 and new building types demanding architectural response, and originality as the essence of genius (and every artist wants to be a genius), the historicist historicist bubble stretch stretches es beyond all possible capacity. capacity. Joseph Mordaunt Crook and John Summerson have commented sympathetically on the intense state of  psychological suffering this put many architects through. Sympathy might be in order if all the suffering were not self-inflicted; it is hard to imagine anybody outside the art community ever  breaking down the doors of an architect’s office and demanding a “new style expressive of the 357

 Alan Coqulhoun, “Three Kinds of Historicism”  Crook, 98. quotes Gilbert Scott, 1857: “The peculiar characteristic of the present day, as compared with

358

359 all

former periods this –no that we are history of art.” and must change – leading to the  And, with stylesisdoing more thanacquainted satisfyingwith taste,the taste is ephemeral  problem of “cultural “cultural exhaustion,” there are only so so many styles to to run through before history history is completely completely

tapped and other directions must must be explored. Frampton notes how Owen Jones accepted accepted this, Frampton, 96-97. “…one may cite Jones’s own recognition of the cultural exhaustion of the West, condemned to the eternal repetition of the same depleted syntax, and his insistence that we need to return to nature as the Egyptians and the Greeks did rather than in the manner adopted by the Chinese and the Goths.”

 

118

 

age,” but in the 20th  century, Corbusier will even go as far as to suggest that without a new architecture, the masses would violently revolt.360  What enabled the Romans to put frame pediments in front of their masonry vaulted structures was the fact that they felt strongly enough about the ancient Greek form that replicating them became a matter of social decorum, and there was enough agreement among architects that all other other choi choices ces did not seem attractive. A 19th  century exposed to multiple cultures was  presented a much larger choice of forms, and relativism makes them all equally just and attractive; none had the power power to suggest itself universally universally before the others. Perhaps a hangover of the medieval master-builder; who as a member of a strong tradition had little  little   choice, choice, the  progressive 19th century architect also wished wished to have no choice. Choice breeds doubt, ddoubt oubt is absolutely intolerable intolerable for those with large responsi responsibility. bility. Rather than make a questionable choice and stand by it, the result is, as Antoine Picon put it, the turn to method; methods guided by various analogies, as John Summerson Summerson put it. Fortunately today we seem much more amendable amendable to variety; no longer do we vehemently argue the moral merits of one set of forms versus another; symbolic ornament, however, is still felt to be something only for post-modern and reactionary architects.

360

 Towards a New Architecture, Architecture, 8: “It is a question of building which is at the root of the social unrest of

to-day: architecture or revolution.” 101: “Entire cities have to be constructed, or reconstructed, in order to  provide a minimum minimum of comfort, comfort, for if this is delayed too long, long, there may be a disturbance in in the balance of society.” And again: 288-89. “Society is filled with a violent desire for something which it may obtain or may not. …Architecture or Revolution. Revolution. Revolution can be avoided.”

 

 

119

6. The Use of Ornament: The Twentieth Century_____________________________ At the onset of the twentieth century calls became more numerous and urgent among leading architects for an architecture of pure uunornamented nornamented forms. These calls often exactly mirror statements made by Laugier, Boullée, Ledoux and Durand, but with the new steel and concrete frames, the possibilities of grand formal exploration – as opposed to ornamental – are now real. The late 19th  century’s extreme indulgences with ornament perhaps formed a large part of the modernist reaction; a period of simple forms was felt to be necessary, which establishes the second low-point in the curve of ornament’s favor in the discourse – the first being the upheaval caused by Rococo. Rococo. The theory of ornament withers; as ornament hhad ad reached a compl complete ete understanding, there was little dramatically new ornament to be explored; form, however, had exciting new possibilities. possibilities. In 1925, for instance, H. Wijdeveld, an admirer of Frank Lloyd Wright who appeared to have invented tantalizing new forms, remarked in the introduction to the Wendingen   series: “The new ornament is architecture itself, it is the shaping of spaces, the Wendingen structure of the monolithic masses, it is the span of the plane, the rhythm of the details, the threedimensional of the construction.”361 

1. Adolf Loos

It is perfectly natural that that the occasional person might find ornament disagreeable. disagreeable. Saint Bernard found ornament disagreeable because it tempted him him towards the devil. Adolf Loos (1870-193 (1870-1933) 3) rejects ornament for two major reasons: its presumed erotic content, and its representation of wasted resources. Which of the tw twoo actually has m more ore importance to Lo Loos os is difficult to tell. Joseph Rykwert suggests that his “passion for smooth and precious surfaces was an unconscious  preference – which... he later rationalized.”362  Some of Loos Loos’s ’s statements sound so outrageous that how he acquired such an influential place in the history of architecture seems odd:

361

 Frank Lloyd Wright, et. al, Frank al, Frank Lloyd Wright: The Complete 1925 “Wendingen” Series, Series, int. Donald

Hoffman. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, 1992. 3. 362  Joseph Rykwert, “Adolf Loos: the New Vision” Necessity Vision”  Necessity of Artifice, Artifice, 67. Loos, Cultural Degeneracy, Degeneracy, 164: “I will go so far as to say I do find my smooth, gently curving, precisely finished cigarette cigarette case  beautiful. It gives me profound aesthetic pleasure, while I find the one by a studio associated with the

 

120

 

  The first ornament that was born, the cross, was erotic in origin. The first work of art, the first artistic act which the first artist, in order to rid himself of his surplus energy, smear on the wall. wall. A horizont horizontal al dash: the prone woman. A vertical dash: the man penetrating her. The man who created it felt tthe he same urge as Beethoven, he was in the same heaven in which Beethoven created his Ninth Symphony. But the man of our own day who… 363

smears the walls with erotic symbols is a criminal or a degenerate.   Aside from the intense moral charge, there are certain interesting ideas in the above; notably that Loos considers an ornament ornament to be the first work of art. art. Possibly music pre-dated ornament, ornament, but ornament certainly was the the first visual art. He also recognizes ornam ornament ent as a product of surplu surplus; s; which seems to be correct; but in the twentieth century, “We have art, which has taken the place of ornament. After the toils and troubles of the day w wee got to Beethoven or to Tristan. …Freedom from ornament is a sign of spiritual strength.” 364  Basically, art and bus busyy life should  be segregated, an argument that Ruskin Ruskin actually started with his demand demand for railway stations to go 365 undecorated.   Ornament, which provi provides des an enriching back background ground material, because iitt is not ‘high’ art, receives Loos’s rejectio rejection. n. Loos consci consciously ously preaches to the ‘aristo ‘aristocrat,’ crat,’ not the common man;366  to reject ornament becomes the aristocrat’s means of rising above the stilldeveloping masses. masses. Unfortunately, archit architecture’s ecture’s realm undeniab undeniably ly involves tthe he common man. Despite a recognition that ornament provides the “highpoint of their existence, for they have no other means [as Beethoven and other high artists had] of achieving,” Loos attempts to impose his 367

aristocratic artistic values on the layman.   Werkbund  (design:  (design: Professor What’s-his-name) What’s-his-name) awful. And anyone who has a stick with a silver handl handlee made by these people is, for me, no gentleman.” 363  Adolf Loos, quoted from Karsten Harries, The Ethical Function of Architecture, Architecture, 41. 364  Loos, “Ornament and Crime , ,”” 175. From Architecture From Architecture trans.  trans. Harry Mallgrave, in Midgard 1, 1987. 365  Gombrich and Karsten Harries have discussed discussed this, Gombrich, 60, aand nd Harries, 33. Ruskin pleaded for railway structures to be undecorated because he did not think a railway station was an appropriate place for the calm appreciation of beauty – too loud, busy, and bustling. In order to read the stones, the observer must pause and actively contemplate; ornament does not work subliminally. 366  Loos, Crime Crime,, 174-175: “The ideal I preach preach is the aristocrat. I can accept decoration on my own person if it brings pleasure to my my fellow men. It brings pleasyre to me, me, too. I can accept the African’s orn ornament, ament, the Persian’s, the Slovak peasant woman’s, my shoemaker’s, for it provides the high point of their existence, which they haveof nothe other of go achieving. We We have  have the art that has Afternot thetake toil and tribulations day,means we can to hear Beethoven or Tristan. Mysuperseded shoemakerornament. cannot. I must his religion away from him, him, for I have nothing to put in its place. But anyone who goes to the the Ninth  Ninth and

then sits down to design a wallpaper pattern is either a fraud or a degene degenerate.” rate.” Although he says he must not take away the shoemaker’s ornament, he does attempt to anyways. 367  See note 6 for quote. Loos, Crime, 168: “Soon the streets of our cities will shine like white walls! Like Zion, the Holy City, City, Heaven’s capital. capital. Then fulfillment fulfillment will be ours.” Fulfillment via via emptiness.

 

 

 

121

Loos’s polemic goes well beyond simple taste reformation and an attempt to define the

 proper role and social habits of the modern aristocrat-artist.368  Pugin selected his style of ornaments based on religious and nationalist sentiments, Loos too builds his principle argument around a nationalism, but he stresses an economic argument against ornament: “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from the objects of everyday use.” use.” “Woe betide the people that lag behind in their cultural development. The English are getting richer, and we poorer...”369 [ellipses not added] Loos shows great admiration for English industrial products in his writings, yet two Englishman had advanced arguments for ornament which bear on exactly the same points, yet are diametrically opposite. opposite. Opening his di discussion scussion on the ornamen ornamentt of ‘savage tribes’ Owen Jones said: “The desire [for ornament] is absent in none, and it grows and increases with all in the ratio 370

of their progress in civilization.”   As previously discussed, William Ch Chambers ambers was perhaps the first to argue the positive benefits of ornamentation as a stimulus for economic activity (among the other benefits). To what extent the ornamentat ornamentation ion of buildings and objects objects of everyday use directly helped the burgeoning economic power of the British Empire is an open question, but  based on the share of the economy the building trade holds today, it must have had a not insignificant contribution. Aware of the eco economic nomic argument argument for  for ornament, Loos rejected it, but did not say where the saved labors would go other than being bottled up into capital savings, 371

which contribute to ‘cultural development,’ i.e., competitive industrial power between nations.   Ruskin had loved ornament as a sign of the hand, but Loos hated it for exactly the same reason;372 

368

 Loos even makes two gastronomic analogies; food  analogies; food  cannot  cannot even be ornamented for the modern man. 169: “For me, and with me for all people of culture, ornament is not a source of increased pleasure in life. When I want to eat a piece of gingerbread, I choose a piece that is plain, not a piece shaped like a heart, or a  baby, or a cavalryman, cavalryman, covered over and over with deco decoration. ration. …The supporters supporters of ornament think my hunger for simplicity is some kind of mortification mortification of the flesh. No, my dear Professor of Applied Arts, I am not mortifying the flesh at all. I find the gingerbread tastes better like that.” And 170: “The vegetables he likes are simply cooked in water water and served with a knob of butter. They taste good to the other only if there are nuts and honey mixed in, and a cook has spent hours over them. Decorated plates cost more, while twentieth –century man likes his food on white crockery alone.” 369

167,of170.  Jones, Crime, Grammar Ornament , 31. 371 Loos, Crime Crime,, 170, 171, 172. “The one saves money while while the other throws it away. And it is the same

370 Loos,

 Loos, Crime Crime,, 170, 171, 172. The one saves money while while the other throws it away. And it is the same with whole nations. Woe betide the people people that lag behind behind in their cultural cultural development. development. The English are getting richer, and we poorer….” Also note 10. 372  Loos, Crime, Crime, 173:  173: “Only when these ornamented things have been made from the best material with the greatest care, and have taken up many man-hours of work, do they become truly unaesthetic.”

 

122

 

it is a sign of the hand wasting labor when that labor could be spent on producing productive capital. Loos does make a powerful argument that deserves restatement: As there is no longer any organic connection between ornament and our culture, ornament is no longer of our being, culture. being created now  bears no relationship to an us, expression nor to any human or The to theornament system governing the world 373 today. It has no potential for development.   This essential makes a more forceful re-statement of ornament’s acknowledged loss which had  begun with Hugo, Ruskin, and others. On the contrary, the ornament of the late 19th  century expresses many cultural phenomena: romanticism, the need to escape a de-humanizing industrydominated environment, the desire for grounding in the past; but eclectically applied it does not express any unified world-ordering ideology as did the ornaments of the original Classic or Gothic styles. In other words, Loos co could uld not reconcile him himself self with ornament’s los loss, s, and chose to dispense with it rather than fall back on its many other useful properties – significant enrichment and the articulation articulation of a buil building’s ding’s purpose. His theory conflict conflictss with his pra practice ctice here, because in his actual buildings, he did take the fallback position of using ornament for simple enrichment. Jones had hoped to find a new style in ornament, but Loos, by rejecting ornament, hoped to finally defeat the eclecticism of changing styles; the non-ornamented style would be the 374

‘right’, right’, new  new style.   In his “Cultural Degeneratio Degeneration” n” he offered that the style of the times w was as that of un-ornamented industrial industrial producti production. on. This is a repetiti repetition on of Durand, equati equating ng fitness and economy with beauty. 373

 Loos, Crime, Crime, 171.  171. Karsten Harries discusses this, 48 Ethical 48  Ethical Function of Architecture. Architecture. He uses the difference between ornament expressive of culture and ornament as aesthetic satisfaction of taste as the distinction between the terms ‘ornament’ and ‘decoration.’ 374 Crime,, 172. “The changing fashion in ornament results in the premature devaluation of the  Loos, Crime  product of the worker’s worker’s labor; his time spent and the material used used are wasted capital. capital. I have formula formulated ted the following principle: The form of an object should last, that is, we should find it tolerable as long as the object itself lasts. I will explain: A suit will change its its style more often than a valuabl valuablee fur. A woman’s  ball outfit, intended intended for one night night alone, will change its style more quickly than a desk.” Also, in in his “Cultural Degeneration”: “Canand anyone deny our leather goods the style of our times? And and glasses? And our bathtubs American washstands? Andare ourintools and machines? And, let our me cutlery repeat,

none of these, none at all, are things which have thigns that have fallen into the hands of the artist. Are these things beautiful? beautiful? That is not the question I ask. They are in the spirit of our tim times es and are therefore right. They would have never fitted into another age, and they could not have been used by other nations. Ergo, they are in the style of our times. times. And we in Austria can be justifiably justifiably proud of the fact that in no other country in the world, apart form England, is the quality of their manufacture so high.”

 

 

123

Among architect’s, Loos’s “Ornament and Crime” had a resounding impact, Corbusier will give a nod to Loos in his “The Decorative Art of Today”, and still smarting from it over fifty years later, Joseph Rykwert wrote an article reassuring us in its title that “Ornament is no Crime.” Most remarkably, despite all his polemics, Loos’s architecture does in fact use ornament in applied marble, and fake applied wood ceiling beams and coffers.375  His exteriors are not  particularly rich in terms of textural ornament (1910 Golman and Salatsch), but his interiors can  be (1907 Kärtner-Bar). Alberti had rightly called applied revetment ornament, and Loos utilizes such cladding extensively as cheap wallpaper. 376  This const constitutes itutes wasted labor; it would have  been better to leave the common brick load-bearing walls exposed and unadorned, keeping the savings for capital investment; or perhaps the marble can be interpreted as the daub of butter on Loos’s vegetable soup.377  At the very least, the use of rev revetment etment shows that Loos acknowledges acknowledges that ornament provides some satisfying visual purpose to the viewer, as papering walls shows some aesthetic impulse.

2. Frank Lloyd Wright

Frank Lloyd Wright Wright (1867-19 (1867-1959) 59) was much m more ore amenable to ornament. Thomas Beeby’s insightful article, “Grammar of Ornament/Ornament as Grammar”378  shows how Wright used techniques of ornament in developing the plans for his buildings, constituting Robert Kerr’s “Ornament structuralized” structuralized” [6.1]. Wright, in his 1908 1908 In  In the Cause of Architecture Architecture shows  shows candid forthrightness about the matter himself: In the main the ornamentation ornamentation is wrought in th thee warp and woof of the structure. It is constitutional in the best ssense ense and is felt in the conceptio conceptionn of the ground plan. To elucidate this element in composition would mean a long story and perhaps a tedious one though to me it is the most fascinating phase of the work, involving the true poetry of conception.379

 

375

 Noted in Debra Schafter, The Order of Ornament, the Structure of Style. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 376  Frampton, 18: “Loos’s habitual application of thin marble revetment on the grounds that it was the cheapest the world, sinceevident since it would need toapplication be replaced…” “Loos’s own natural form as awallpaper surrogate in ornament is most innever his internal of thin257: marble revetme revetment. nt.use Loos

used stone as a thin screen, however, however, as a mask he referred to ironically ironically as inexpensive wall paper…  Loos, Crime Crime.. See note 9, which discusses his two gastronomic analogies. 378  Thomas Beeby, “Grammer of Ornament/Ornament Ornament/Ornament as Grammar” from Ornament. Philadelphia, PA: Falcon Press, 1977. VIA III. 379  Wright, Wendingen, 19. 377

 

124

 

Reticence in the matter of ornamentation is characteristic of these structures …they are the expression of an idea that ornamentation should be constitutional, a matter of the nature of the structure beginning with the ground plan.380   This makes the first explicit statement of ‘integral’ ornament; that is, ornament applied at a scale whereat the entire building’s form takes takes the shape of an ornamental composition. The Ecole des Beaux-Arts had used this method (and Sullivan used it for applicative ornament), but Wright takes a more free approach, often using unlikely program elements to fill the nooks and crannies of an ornamental conception: The plans are as a rule much more articulate than is the school product of the Beaux Arts. The individuality of the various functions of the various features is more highly developed; all the forms are complete in themselves and frequently do duty at the same time from within and without as decorative attributes of the whole.381   Consider the plan of Unity Temple Temple [6.2]. On the Southern wing’s corners the nobl noblee function of storage closets receives receives exterior expression expression as large blocky ma masses. sses. A Beaux-arts plan wo would uld never articulate such a minor element so expressively, but the closets are exactly what Wright says they should be, elements doing “duty at the same time from with and without as decorative attributes of the whole.” whole.” In this specific case, the closet closetss do little duty within within,, but from without, they form blocks which anchor the elevation of the building and lend a strong sense of massiveness to the composition [6.3].

[6.1] Thomas Beeby, comparison of Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Sullivan’s compositional methods. 380

 Wright, Wendingen, 22. Beeby’s also documents Wright’s Wright’s exposure to Sullivan and Owen Jones iinn his

“Grammer of ucture Ornament/Ornament asline, Grammar” article, quotings from FLW’s biography: “I would  practice in structure str by way of point, and plane the rhythms rhythm that he [Sullivan] preached so welltryin into

 plastic clay… …Many years later later as I lived, drew, drew, and built I found found in what I conceived conceived and drew that element I now called plasticity (the master had rendered it so completely in clay) carried in its own nature implications of unexplored structural continuity and could exemplify, simplify and even prove the aesthetic validity of structural forms themselves.” 381  Wright, Wendingen, 18.

 

 

125

 

[6.2] Frank Lloyd Wright, Unity Temple. 1900.

[6.3] Western face of Southern wing.

But Wright understood understood a building to be much more than a formal formal composition. Surfaces and materials must be sensitively treated somehow – there must be applied ornament in addition to the formal ornament. ornament. For this, many dis disparate parate as yet un-eclected sources are eclected from:  pre-Columbian architecture, Japanese architecture, combined with his own philosophy of expressing the “nature of the materials,” and a formal expression which takes its character from the rolling prairies. The ‘nature of the materials’ idea has been present in the disco discourse urse for quite some time at this point, but his idea that a building’s form should be imitative of the regional landscape seems relatively new; previously, the angle of roofs were understood to be an expression of regionalism due to varying amounts of snowfall, but Wright modifies the entire  building form down to ornamental treatment of brick joints to eexpress xpress the mid-western prairie’s horizontality. This can be easily contrasted wit withh Sullivan, who used the buil building’s ding’s form to express its human-function character rather than its regional location; Sullivan’s buildings fit their urban context well, but prairie houses can only organically grow with the free room a suburban context provides. This illustrates oone ne of the limitations of “ornament structuralized,” structuralized,” which has  been understood at least least since Alberti.382  Regarding the machine, Wright takes a much more optimistic stance than Ruskin:

382

 Alberti, 294: “…with a town house the boundary of the neighboring property imposes many constraints that may be treated with greater freedom in a villa.” Venturi also discusses this, directly discussing discussing Wright, Contradiction.  on 82 of Complexity and Contradiction. 

 

126

 

It is a mistaken notion that the legitimate usage of the Machine precludes ornamentation. The contrary is the case. Pattern, – the impress of the imagination imagination – is more vital than it ever was in the use of any other system or “to “tool” ol” in any other age. But before we can find the significant expressions that give poetry and endless variety to this new architecture in any integral sense we shall first have protested the old “ornamentation” by reverting to clean forms expressive as such in themselves. themselves. Little by littl little, e, the use of significant virile pattern will creep in to differentiate, explain and qualify as a property of the third dimension dimensio poetry. And materials structural enclosures w will illvivify ever the be increasing therebyninassignificance sign ificance andthewhat we calland beauty. beauty . Imagination will vivify  background and expression of modern life, as truly and more universally and richly than was ever before seen in the world, - even in the aesthetic background of the Moors or the Chinese.383  Wagner had already utilized the machine quite successfully for rich patterned ornament on his facades; but note how Wright, as with many others, shows an understanding that the ‘structural enclosure’ will be given significance significance and beauty by the addition of ornament. ornament. The often present ‘virile’ ekes into Wright’s vocabulary. vocabulary. What constitutes a ‘virile’ patterned orname ornament nt can only be speculated upon. Whatever one may say about Wright’s use of ornament, it is clear that a certain level of richness was desired, desired, most especially at hi hiss Tokyo Hotel and Midway Gardens. Wagner had noted about the importance of the scale of the details in relation to the overall work, and Wright typically keeps his details at a scale where his modern ornament achieves the same density of visual stimulation found in many highly-ornamented 19 th  century works. At Mid Midway way Garden Gardens, s, [6.4, 6.5] some of the ornament went beyond surface enrichment to representational illustration of the purpose of the building. Near entrances abstracted statues hold aloft boxes overfl overflowing owing with either bubbles or grapes. Other statues go about bbusiness usiness as humble waitress waitresses es or producing the  beverages to be imbibed [6.8]. As with Wagner, sculptural figures are set atop forms rather than integrated within niches or frames. A bubbly pai painted nted mural figures largely in a pub public lic space, along with a mayan-esque wall sculpture reminiscent of a fireplace with some faint echoes of the motifs present in the other other ornaments - and what appear to be extremely abstracted abstracted caryatids. The method of communication is subtle and abstracted, not overly direct, but present; for those who do not wish to investigate the meanings of these abstracted ornaments, they can easily be

appreciated as simple enrichment. enrichment. At the Imperial Hotel [6.6, 6.7], th thee vocabulary of Wright’s 383

Wendingen, 62-63.  Wright, Wendingen,  62-63. 1925 addition.

 

 

127

forms remains similar, but the ornament changes to express a more eastern ‘feeling.’ 384  A statue holding aloft two saki(?) boxes boxes again appears, but this time the boxes are not overflowing. overflowing. The ornament of the complex complex is not too direct with any spec specific ific message, but subtly subtly abstract. For example, an observer probably cannot immediately discern what Wright’s stacked spheres [6.6] represent, but they add tremendously tremendously to the character of of the building. The main lobby sp space ace explodes with enrichment, enrichment, celebrating one’s arriva arrivall to the hotel. Wright, like Wagner, achi achieved eved a-historicist ornament ornament which integrated itself well well with the forms it adorned. Rather than attempt to find a new great ideological expression for ornament, they both use it effectively to express and glorify the function of the building.

[6.4] FLW, Midway Gardens. 1913-1914

[6.5] Wall ornament with abstracted caryatid brackets

[6.6] FLW, Imperial Hotel. 1916-1920

[6.7] Entrance lobby.

384

 Frampton, Modern Architecture 1851-1919. 200:  Frampton, Modern 1851-1919. 200: “Wright’s Prairie Style, which was as much influenced  by Japanese culture as it was dependent on the principle of the Beaux-Arts, had here finally finally to confront the the Japanese architectural tradition on its own terms… the general effect here seems to have been PreColumbian rather than Shinto…”

 

128

 

[6.8] Representational figures in Wright’s Midway Gardens, and, far right, Tokyo Hotel.

 

3. Auguste Perret

Wright was more concerned with form than tectonics, but August Perret (1874-1954) balances him by focusing almost completely on the tectonic expression of the concrete frame.385  Contrasting Perret with Viollet-le-Duc’s inventions, Collins notes: “Perret… simply adopted and refined a structural system which had already been evolved by engineers and building contractors…” contractors …”386  The Greeks when refinin refiningg the ornaments of their al already-evolved ready-evolved timber frame had an idea with which to guide their tectonic manipulations: to express the gender of the god the temple was for. Perret lacked such a specific goal for his tectonics, tectonics, but he attempted to elevate elevate the frame above the realm of of mere construction int intoo art. He stands as an evol evolutionary utionary because, while his contemporaries were discarding all historic associations, he acknowledged the importance of certain forms, notably traditional windows.387  To use non-traditional window forms as devices for patterning a façade increases the scale of ornament (assuming that no additional detail-scale ornament is applied to the new window frames), and also discards the 385

Ideals, 163, 178, 207, 214, 239, 298-99  Frampton, 121-157. Collins, Changing Ideals,  Collins, Changing Ideals, Ideals, 214. Hennabique had established established what is essentially modern reinforced reinforced concrete frame construction in 1897. 387  Frampton, 143: “The development of the rue Raynouard apartment building compelled Perret to reassert the canonical status of the traditional French window as opposed to the fenêtre the  fenêtre en longueur of Le 386

Corbusier. the French suffused suffused a particular particul ar cultural significance. significance. As he  put it, “la fenêtre fe…he nêtre saw en hauteur c’estwindow le cadreasdebeing l’homme.” Forwith Perret… Perret …the French window, with its hinged

double doors opening inward, was indicative of the presence of man. Here, a received tectonic element assumes symbolic anthropomorphic anthropomorphic dimensions. dimensions. For Perret the porte-fenêtre the porte-fenêtre went even further, for it not only established the decorum of the bourgeois interior, its rhythm, space, and graduation of light, but it also induced the cadence of human movement within the room. …It provides a certain decorum…” So, Perret’s arguments for the traditional window were spatial, associational, perspectival, and practical.

 

 

129

valuable associative associative qualities of recognizable windows. windows. Unless there is a good reason, windows should be ornamented, ornamented, not become a means for creating an oornamental rnamental pattern. This may seem like a ridiculous point, point, but it will be further discussed in chapter chapter seven. It merely shows one of the many Corbusian reversals that the modern movement propagated; rather than decorate windows, windows become a means to create decoration.388  

Perret clearly states his views about ornament in his Contribution à une théorie: “He who

hides any part of the framework not only deprives architecture of its sole legitimacy but also strips from it its most beautiful beautiful ornament. He who hides a column makes a blund blunder, er, but he who makes a false column commits a crime.” 389 

This is literally Robert Kerr’s ‘structure

ornamentalized.’ Obviously, look looking ing at his Théâtre ddee l’Exposition ddes es Arts Décoratifs [6.9, 6.10], Perret allowed himself some license in this statement about false columns. 390  To ensure that the observer can experience the structure from both outside and inside, columns are employed redundantly on the interior and exterior of the perimeter wall; they bear true loads, but they are certainly not necessary on both sides. sides. If not committing a crime, Perret shows his allegiance to the classical tradition which employed columns as ornament for their psychological effect. His omission of ttwo wo exterior columns on the seldom-seen back of of the building sh shows ows either value-engineering at work, or a sensible consideration of the user’s approach and application of ornament to where it will be most appreciated.

388

 Henry Russell-Hitchcock, Phillip Johnson, The International Style. Style. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1932. 1996 edition, 61: “Windows constitute a more important element in modern architecture than they have in any architecture since that of the Gothic cathedrals. They are the most conspicuous features of modern exterior design. Their handling is therefore an aesthetic problem of the greatest importance.” importance.” 82: “The fact that there is so little detail today increases the decorative effect of what there is. …As has already  been suggested in discussing window frames, frames, the quality quality of the detail has very considerable considerable importance… In anyeffect.” simple153: architecture where the windows conspicuous decorative elements are vital to the total “Lettering, circular windows,are and flagpole arethese decorative elements.”

389

 Quoted from Frampton, 154.  Frampton, 135: “Disturbed by the lack of structural modulation on the exterior of Notre-Dame du Raincy, Peret arranged for 14 redundant columns to appear as representative orders on the blank b lank exterior of the theater [Theatre des Arts Decoratifs], including two columns set off from each corner in order to terminate the system.”

390

 

130

 

  [6.9, 10] August Perret, 1924-25 Théâtre de l’Exposition des Arts Décoratifs

So for Perret, the primary ornament of architecture rested in the artistic manipulation of the frame, but what about his his view on applied seman semantic tic ornament? From Frampton, we learn he said: “Decorative art should be be forbidden. I would like to kno know w who stuck these word wordss together: art and decorative. It is a m monstrosity. onstrosity. Where there is true art, there is no need for decoration decoration.” .”391  What exactly Perret means here by decoration is unclear, because looking at his buildings, the type of enrichment often called “decoration” occurs; meaningful paintings, sculptures, and enrichment connoting connoting significan significance. ce. The enrichment can be representational representational;; such as th thee leafy encrustation on his 1902-3 25 rue Franklin [6.11], or abstract, such as his precast concrete triangle grilles 1936 Musée des Travaux Publ Publics ics [6.12]. Frank Lloyd Wrigh Wrightt had also used custom  precast concrete ornaments; both are continuing the tradition of ornamental precast terra-cotta in the new material. An extremely subtle ppoetic oetic detail occurs in both of these examples; observe how the occasional leaf timidly overlaps onto the clad frame at Rue Franklin, and how the museum capital’s angular, angular, abstracted leaves cont continue inue onto the be beam am soffit. Baroque ornament had completely blurred the boundaries between structure and adornment, here Perret shows the same tendency, but with much greater control. Perrault attempts to adapt the classical vocabulary, but elements of classical composition that previously were used for extremely significant sculpture, such as the frieze, begin to be supplanted with with less directly meaningful orname ornament. nt. At the Théâtre de l’Expositio l’Expositionn des Arts Décoratifs he furnishes the frieze around the building with applied half-pipes and at his ecole

391

 Frampton, 153.

 

 

131

 Normale de Musique a system of louvers substitute for similar enrichment.392  However, in other situations, such as his 1911-13 Théâtre des Champs-Elysées, the full traditional accompaniment of painting and sculpture sculpture are brought to bear within and without without of the building [6.13-14]. [6.13-14]. There are undoubtedly dozens of good reasons for his inconsistency, but it shows how finding an appropriate meaning to express with a modern semantic ornament will be a difficult problem, the turn to louvers and pipes offers an easy, inoffensive, mute solution.

[6.11] Perret, 1903 25 Rue Franklin.

[6.12] Musée des Travaux Publics exterior detail.

Perret attempts the same feat Phillibert de l’Orme attempted in the 16th  century, the invention of a French classical order,393  this ttime ime in concrete rather than banded stone. Like de l’Orme, the idea is rather hopeful that an observer will perceive the column to be uniquely French, but any onlooker would undoubtedly appreciate the richly detailed multi-faceted capitals and textured fluting Perret provides in the attempt. Fundamentally, Perret heeded Pugin and Owen Jones’s calls for ‘construction should be decorated, decoration never constructed.’ constructed.’ Rather than turn his concrete framing pplans lans into a large ornamental patterns, he attempted to turn basic, practical concrete construction methods into an

392

 Frampton, 139. “…the building becomes a vehicle for evolving what Perret would regard as a new

French classical-rational order. order. This surely accounts for the regular “fluting” of the columns, and for the ventilation frieze of alternating, half-round pipes running around the perimeter of the building as a vestigial entablature. A similar metaphorical frieze, composed composed of adjustable louvers, would be employed by Perret in the ecole Normale de Musique.” 393  Frampton, 134, 144. Perret probably never seriousl seriouslyy expected it to catch on.

 

132

 

art. There is much to be said for this approach, as Perret prov proves es that it makes for buildings whi which ch  blend well into the urban urban context.394

  [6.13, 14] 1911-13 Théâtre des Champs-Elysées. Classicism Classicism in concrete. 4. Charles Eduoard Jeanneret

Le Corbusier actually used semantic ornament more than might be expected considering his statements in the 1925 “The Decorative Art of Today,” 395 but he rarely developed what could be called tectonic ornament. For the most part, Corbusier reduced the quantity of ornament significantly and vastly inflated its scale; but traces of traditionally-scaled ornament remain in much of his work; for instance, he will ornament important doors or use the occasional artistic mural. Although th this is tradition traditional al detail sscale cale ornament remain remains, s, his other applied ornament usually does not take the form of what what traditionally might be be recognized as enrichment. Wagner achieved a rich machine ornament that expressed the active human hand in assembly, but Corbusier’s ornaments, except for the occasional painted mural or relief, do not read as products of the hand – even e ven though intense hand labor quite often was involved in their production. For the purposes of analyzing Corbusier in terms of ornament, two major angles have  been identified, involving patterned and free ornament. The first is Thomas Beeby’s recognition

394

 Collins, Changing Ideals, 299-300.  Le Corbusier, The Decorative Art of Today, trans. James Dunnett. Cambridge Massachusetts, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1987. 84: “modern “modern decorative art is not decorated.” He decorated.” He goes on to echo Loos, giving credit to him. He attacks Ruskin: “…having opened our eyes and rid ourselves of the romantic and Ruskinian baggage that formed our education…” 395

 

 

133

that many of Corbusier’s elevations and plans use traditional geometric ornamental patterns on an extremely large scale.396  The most notable of these is hhis is plan for a city of three million, million, which  bears an uncanny resemblance to Renaissance coffered ceiling plans and Greek fret patterns [6.15]. This is much more than a superficial resemblance; a city plan is bei being ng generated with the same techniques that were typically used to design ornamental wall and ceiling coverings.

[6.15] Thomas Beeby’s drawings from “Grammar of Ornament/Ornament as Grammar.” Upper left: Corbusier’s city for three million. Upper right: enlargement of Corbusier’s plan with Greek fret patterns. Bottom left and center, ceiling plan from Vignola’s Farnese Palace and plan from Towards a New  Architecture.. Bottom right, selections from Owen Jones.  Architecture

Beeby’s article title, “Grammar of Ornament/Ornament as Grammar” shows one of the reversals – ornament which had previously been applied to buildings on the detail-scale became the ordering system for the building at large, and the second reversal comes from the welldocumented influence of painting. Pre-modern movemen movement,t, paintings were conceived of as ornaments for buildings, but for Corbusier, paintings became ordering systems  for  the   the building. Collins points out that Corbusier himself admitted this, “…in his book on The Modular , [he] has specifically explained how the façade of his proposed business center for Algiers (1939) was

396

 Thomas Beeby, “Grammer of Ornament/Ornament Ornament/Ornament as Grammar” from Ornament. Philadelphia, PA:

Falcon Press, 1977. VIA III. Beeby has discussed Corbusier’s education education – which included signifi significant cant exposure to Owen Jones. He quotes Corbusier himself: himself: “There was a magnificent book in L’Epla L’Eplattenier’s ttenier’s class library: “ A Grammar of Ornament” by Ornament” by Owen Jones. Decoration is a debatable debatable topic, but “ornament” ornament”    pure and simple is a thing of significance; significance; it is a synthesis, the the result of process process of putting together. together. Making ornaments was a necessary discipline imposed by l’Eplattenier on L-C.”

 

134

 

 based on an abstract painting he made in 1931.”397  Summerson co compares mpares Corbu Corbusier’s sier’s plan for the Pavilion Suisse with a Picasso painting and observes “it seems to me that some of his plans have, in themselves, something of the quality of an abstract painting or drawing.” 398  Corbusier’s  process of inverting all the traditional relationships – decorative arts are not decorated,399 rather than stand in the garden, the garden stands on the house, parks are not in cities, cities are in the  park,400  apparently also extended to paintings; you do not paint on buildings, buildings are are    paintings. This focus on painting gives one of Corbusier’s unusual comments in Towards a New  Architecture   a new light; he instructs us that we are not to decorate our walls with a riot of  Architecture  paintings, but should keep them in the closet until we wish to meditate upon them, “The true collector of pictures arranges them in a cabinet and hangs on the wall the particular painting he wants to look at…”401  It woul would, d, after all, seem silly ttoo put a paint painting ing oonn a painting. The Renaissance writers were quite comfortable with ornamenting ornament, but Corbusier would rather not. It may be quite alright to use free painting and patterned ornament at a large scale to order a work, but, working under the Albertian idea that the ‘investment of mind’ and ‘hand of the craftsman’ have something to do with the appreciation of ornament, to invert the typical relationship with the increase in scale that accompanies it, a significant reduction in the apparent   investment of mind and hand hand occurs per unit surface area of the building. building. Frank Lloyd Wright had used patterned ornament at a large scale in his compositions, but he introduced detail-scale applicative ornament to sustain the ‘investment of mind’ and ‘hand of craftsman’ qualities. Two examples by Le Corbusier will be be considered. First, his 1945-52 Unité dd’Habitation ’Habitation de Marseilles [6.16-6.19]. [6.16-6.19]. Beeby has already shown how how the balcony railings have been used to create a large-scale ornamental pattern on either end of the building, but, consider the concrete 397

 Collins, Changing Ideals, Ideals, 283.  Summerson, Heavenly  Summerson,  Heavenly Mansions, Mansions, 191. 194: “…it is often said that today [1947] architecture and the

398

other arts do not collaborate – that painters and sculptors no longer adorn the works of the architects as they did in the past. That is, in one sense, true; but in in another sense - …collaborat …collaboration ion between the arts has never

 been so richly productive productive as it has in in the last thirty thirty years” 399  Corbusier, The Decorative Art of Today, 84: “modern “modern decorative art is not decorated.”  decorated.”  400  Summerson, Heavenly  Summerson,  Heavenly Mansions, 190. Mansions, 190. 401  Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, Architecture, trans. Frederick Etchells. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1986. 120.

 

 

detailing that that occurs around the pilotis pilotis..

135

A Modular man cast into the base makes a

representational ornament. ornament. But what should be particularly not noted ed are the form board li lines nes that occur in the the underside of the slab slab;; they create a simple altern alternating ating pattern. While hardly recognizable as ornament, if Corbusier controlled the orientation of the boards then this does fit the qualification for for patterned architectural ornament. ornament. The intentional vert vertical ical orientation of the form-boards on the pilotis vaguely suggests the historicist device of fluting, only without the tactile allure. Functionless chan channels nels are sculpted into the pil pilotis otis underneath the major perimeter perimeter  beam that carries the majority of the building’s load. To remove material at the point where structurally it is most needed forms a kind of anti-tectonic ornament. On the roof, small areas of wall receive an enriching application of blue, yellow, and white colored tiles set in a zig-zag  pattern. These tiles with the inset modular man at the base seem to form the building’s only  purely unnecessary applied rather than formal ornament. At an interior corridor, circular terracotta tiles are used used as infill to create patterned relights. The floor mount mounted ed light fixtu fixtures res are ornamentally scroll-shaped; the window-mullions are mirrored about an axis (repetition, pattern, ornament), lastly, the floor tile joints joints do not line up with anything. anything. This shows little ‘investment ‘investment of mind’ in the details, unlike Wagner, who carefully made his interior ornaments relate to each other at his Postsparkasse, none of these interior details carry any relationship from one to the other. To be generous, perhaps Corbusier focu focused sed his design energi energies es on tthe he large-scale ornament; or perhaps he simply did not see an ordered cohesion as significant.

[6.16] Corbusier. Corbusier. Unité Unité d’Habitation, d’Habitation, roof. Note tile enrichment. [6.17] Beeby drawing and Owen Jones ‘savage tribe’ ornament.

 

136

 

  [6.18] Unité d’Habitation, mid-block shopping street.

[6.19] Pilotis detailing.

Chandigarh’s (1950-1968) buildings also use ornament at an unusually large scale; always a-tectonic, usually abstract semantic, but in at least one a large directly semantic ornament occurs. First, the High Co Court urt building [[6.20]. 6.20]. Note how the li lines nes of the concrete bris-soleil have  been formed into a simple large geometric pattern; the entire foot-ball field sized building  provides about the same apparent level of investment present in a single 2’x 6’ 16th  century  balustrade. Note that because detail-scale ornament was not provided, potted plants have been added to enrich the bu building’s ilding’s monu monumental mental gateway [[6.19]. 6.19]. Over the main entrance of th thee Secretariat [6.20], Corbusier uses concrete balcony walls and shades to create a pattern, which, whether he intended it or not, bears a resemblance to a painted pattern Wright used at a scale dozens of times smaller to enrich the interior of his Coonley Coonley house [6.23, 24]. Wright’s example shows ornamental pattern flowing from wall to window; Corbusier’s ornament only occurs at the macro-scale. The A Assembly ssembly building has ssimilarly imilarly large ornaments [6.22]. Under the main  portico, whose curve may have been inspired by cattle’s horns,402  the series of eight concrete  bearing walls are ornamented with an aalternating lternating series of holes and small blocky outcroppings. These may have symbolism, but they they appear to be merely ornamental enrichment. Unmistakably there appears to be a large semantic semantic ornament crowning the ‘dome’ ‘dome’ [6.25]. It must be admitted that historic sculptural ornament, even when clearly representational, can often be difficult to

402

 Kenneth Frampton, Le Frampton,  Le Corbusier: Architect of the Twentieth Century. Harry Century. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1900. 428.  New York, 2002. 120. William J.R. Curtis, Modern Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900. 428.

 

 

137

read. Wright’s modern ab abstracted stracted statues at Midw Midway ay Gardens and the Imperial Hotel Hotel are difficult to understand from photographs, photographs, but atop this dome we have an enigma. It appears to be a large caricature of a face, or it could be a form inspired from Indian cattle, or possibly an anthropomorphic caricature caricature of both [6.26]. In either case, due to its prom prominent inent location, it must  be the symbol of the Indian nation. To design an ornament representative of an entire nation’s ideals would be an un-enviable task; the best comparisons would be the U.S. Capital dome and  Norman Foster’s Reichstag dome. Neither of those made the attempt of using representational ornament on a massive scale to communicate; rather, the traditional form was highly enriched to connote significance; in the case of the U.S. capitol, with classical columns and all their imagined associational connections with Greek democracy, at the Reichstag, with forward-looking technoornament. Ornament can do many po powerful werful things, but in special cases such as these these it may be  better to keep it subservient subservient to a millennia-old fo form rm rather than attempt to re-invent the dome.

th

[6.20] Corbusier, 1951-5 Chandigarh Chandigarh High Court. Upper left: late 16  century Diwan-I-Khas. Upper right: enlarged balustrade, High court partial elevation, and Owen Jones Chinese ornament selections.

 

138

 

[6.21] High Court monumental gate.

 

[6.22] Assembly Building.

[6.23, 6.24] Secretariat detail and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Coonley House interior.

[6.25, 6.26] Assembly Building dome and abstracted semantic ornament, with apparent inspiration.

 

 

139

5. Denise Scott Brown, Steven Izenour, and Robert Venturi

Without a doubt those who have written most influentially about ornament in the second half the twentieth century were the Learning the  Learning from Las Vegas team. After Orth Orthodox odox Modernism’s reign during which all education in ornament had been removed from the schools, 403 architects were in dire need of re-education concerning symbolism and ornament in architecture.404  In 1966 Complexity and Contradiction  Contradiction  made major statements, but ornament did not form the major theme of the book; Vegas thrusts the question of meaning and ornament into the forefront and revives the late 18th  century idea that architecture can make meaningful associations by connection with past experiences.405  The condit conditions ions of the American cultural and physical landscape in 1977 were analyzed, and ornament’s potential for communication was suggested. After declaring modern formal ornament irrelevant, the most important observations for discussion are those concerning the automobile’s affect on the experience of ornament and electronic signs’ potential as a new, meaningful cladding. Robert Kerr’s points 1 and 4 are revived as the decorated shed and the duck, and the observation is made that most of orthodox modern architecture qualifies as ‘ornament constructed’ ducks, leading to the powerful accusation that “We have been designing dead ducks”;406 a “two foot cantilever on the face of a building, put there to suit a sensitive nuance of the program discerned only by the architect”407 has little interest for an anybody ybody else. Modernism’s faith in the process of design is revealed as a romantic delusion;408 by substituting ‘articulation’

403

 Beeby, “Grammar of Ornament/Ornament Ornament/Ornament as Grammar” “The originators of the Modern Movement  possessed, as part of their heritage, heritage, an understanding understanding of the formal, formal, symbolic, and manipulative manipulative elements of historical style, even if they chose to turn away from them. The architect of today, however, has not inherited these cultural and aesthetic components, for they were consciously eliminated from architectural training by his immediate predecessors.” 404  For instance, the simple idea of “…a combination of many… ornaments at the edge of a door symbolizes the importance of the door in the face of the w wall.” all.” Needed re-statement. Vegas, Vegas, 106-107.  106-107. 405  Vegas Vegas,, 7, 8, 89. “…architecture depends on its perception and creation on past experience and emotional association…” Alan Colquhoun’s Colquhoun’s article article “Typology and Design Method,”  Arena, Journal of the  Architectural Association (June 1967) 11-14 is credited by Venturi & team for the revival of association.  Association (June 406  Vegas Vegas,, 89, 162.

407

 Vegas, Vegas, 139.  139.  Vegas, 135. 148: “If articulation has taken over from ornament in the architecture of abstract expressionism, space is what displaced symbolism. symbolism. Our heroic and original symbols, from carceri carceri to  to Cape Kennedy, feed our late Romantic egos and satisfy our lust for expressionistic, expressionistic, acrobatic space for a new age in architecture.” 134: “What appears on the surface as a hard, rational discipline of design, turns out rather 408

 

140

 

for ornament,409  architecture lost lost its abi ability lity to co communicate mmunicate anythin anythingg of cons consequence. equence. John Summerson said effectively the same thing in his “The Mischevious Analogy” 410, but Vegas Vegas    provides illuminating illuminating case studies. Little can be added to the face-off between Paul Rudolph’s Crawford Manor and Venturi & Rauch’s Guild House [6.27]. [6.27]. It is claimed that “Guild House House has ornament on it, Crawford Crawford Manor does not.”411  While nnot ot disco discounting unting the argumen arguments ts regardin regardingg the substitution of articulation for ornament, it can be observed that Crawford Manor does does have  have ornament on it, but the ornament lacks any traditional traditional association with what would would be considered enrichment. The ribbed face concrete blocks are a step above ordinary, standard blocks, they were selected by the architect, and they they create a simpl simplee pattern of vvertical ertical lines. We have litt little le problem cal calling ling  patterned glazed brick, stone revetment, or carved rustication ornament (common brick or block would not  be   be ornament), but these concrete blocks – although they are essentially for the same  purpose; cladding with some added articulation – we do not call ornament. Perhaps because the visual stimulation derived from them is very low.

[6.27] Learning [6.27]  Learning From Las Vegas. Ornament Vegas. Ornament of Ortho-Mod versus Post-Mod.

 paradoxically to be a mystical belief in the intuitive intuitive process. …the process of making architecture architecture becomes the image of architecture.” 409  Vegas Vegas,, 101. 103, 139. 410 Summerson,  Summerson, Mansions  Mansions,, 196: “Modern architecture arises from an accurate analysis of the needs of

modern society and represents the logical solution to the problem of shelter  achieved  achieved by the direct application of means to ends; it expresses the spirit of the machine age; it age; it is the architecture of industrial living . It is based on a study of scientific resources and an exploitation of new materials. materials . Finally, it is organic.. Taken at their face value, such phrases as these organic these are, shall we say, unint uninteresting. eresting. They tell us jus justt nothing.” 411 Vegas, 91.  Vegas,  91.

 

 

141

Analysis with an Albertian and Ruskinian eye yields a useful observation regarding the effective employment of ornament. ornament. The continuous vert vertical ical lines at Crawford Manner des destroy troy the eye’s ability to perceive each block as an individual hand-laid unit; although it was a hand-built wall, one cannot easily appreciate the labor labor that went into it. Rudolph’s choice of contin continuous uous texture to imitate the lines of béton-brut   concrete412  weakened one of ornament’s valuable assets – the apparent sign of the human hand. Complexity and Vegas challenge orthodox modernism, but what is suggested for the new ornament? Ironic gau gaudy dy po pop-culture p-culture hhonky-tonk onky-tonk elements? The Guil Guildd Hou House’s se’s win windows dows are supposed to take a cue from Andy Warhol soup cans, and the single course of white brick “suggests the proportions of a Renaissance palace.”413  Ornament’s great strength comes from it itss  being  special , a television antennae, apart from the vulgar symbolism, 414  does not make a  particularly special sight atop a building; an average observer might not even understand the antennae as an expression expression of anyt anything. hing. However, at least V Venturi, enturi, Brown, and Izen Izenour our are seriously thinking thinking about the problem problem.. In one of their critiques of of Mies; they note changing technologies and suggest an appropriate modern medium for ornament: Less may have been more, but the I-section on Mies van der Rohe’s fire-resistant columns, for instance, is as complexly ornamental as the applied pilaster on the Renaissance pier or the incised shaft in the Gothic pier. (In fact, less was more work.) Acknowledged or not, Modern ornament has seldom been symbolic of anything nonarchitectural since the Bauhaus vvanquished anquished A Art rt Deco and the decorative arts arts.. More specifically, its content content is consi consistently stently spatial and technologi technological. cal. Like the Renaissan Renaissance ce vocabulary of the Classical orders, Mies’s structural ornament, although specifically contradictory to the structure it adorns, reinforces the architectural content of the building as a whole. If the Classical orders sym symbolized bolized “rebirth of the Golden Golden Age of Rome,” modern I-beams represent “honest expression of modern technology as space”––or something like that. Note, however, that it was was “modern” technology ooff the Industrial Revolution that was symbolized by Mies, and this technology, not current electronic technology, is still the sources for Modern architectural symbolism today.415

 

412

Vegas,, 91.  Vegas  Vegas Vegas,, 92, 130. 414  To be fair, it is commented that “an open-armed, polychromatic plaster Madonna in this position would have been more imageful but unsuitable for a Quaker institution that eschews all outward symbols…” (92) Still, money spent on the antennae could have perhaps instead thickened the line of white bricks to two courses, or continued it on the back of the building, which is nearly indistinguishable from a modernist 413

urban renewal project. There is little confidence in in the antennae anyways, which is call called ed ugly and “almost sculpture.” 415  Vegas, 114. A critique of Kahn is given on 139: “Louis Kahn once cal called led exaggeration the architect’s architect’s tool to create ornament. ornament. But exaggeration of structure structure and program (and, in the 1950s and 1960s, mechanical equipment, that is, ducts equal decoration) decoration) has become a substitute for ornament. To replace ornament and explicit symbolism, symbolism, Modern architects indulge in distortion and overarticul overarticulation. ation. Strident

 

 

142

   Now, architecture has seen changing technologies before; the existence of something new does not necessarily constitute constitute a valid reason for its adaptation. A good eclectic (and all architects are eclectic to a certain degree – whether from painting, industrial products, or historic styles) carefully evaluates evaluates the source before making a selection. In Complexity Complexity,, Venturi justifies the integration of honky-tonk elements into architecture simply because they exist. 416  It is not felt that architecture sacrifices anything of its status as a ‘high’ art due to this interaction with popular culture.417  The prospects for electronic ddisplays isplays will be discussed in the next chapter. As for pop culture’s integration into architecture; perhaps experimentation in all possible avenues can be acceptable, but, an assumption for ornament – possibly a weak, idealistic assumption – involves that the building should should last, if not as Ruskin said “forever”, at least 50-10 50-1000 years or more. If our  buildings are constructed to last under 50 years, then large amounts of ornament would indeed be  pointless; temporary structures naturally do not deserve the significance ornament connotes, unless the market demands demands a bare minimum for the purp purpose ose of identifiable branding. branding. Some say that the spatial demands a century from now might be radically different from those required today, therefore we should only build for the short-term, but renovations of historic railroad stations, warehouses, churches, and factories to new uses seem to prove that ‘space’ can be remarkably adaptable. adaptable. But, assuming that architectu architecture re should   should  last  last a significant length of time (the last bastion which separates us from industrial, interior, and fashion design), then it might seem advisable to avoid any overly blatant references to ephemeral pop iconography, even if such references will make it easier for the art historian to date us, track our influences, and classify our work.

distortion at large scale and “sensitive” articulation at small scale result in expressionism that is, to us, meaningless and irrelevant, an architectural soap opera in which to be progressive is to look outlandish.” 416

 Complexity Complexity,, 42: The main justification for honky tonk elements in architectural order is their very existence. They are what we have.” 417  Vegas Vegas,, 161: “…learning from popular culture does not remove the architect from his or her status in high culture. …Irony may be the tool with which to confront and combine divergent values in architecture for a pluralist society and to accommodate the differences in values that arise between architects and clients.”

 

 

 

143

The final item for discussion regarding Vegas involves the automobile, the first major

text to really study the implications of the car on architectural design.418  The car covers great distances at rapid speeds; the occupants cannot fully catch all the wondrous detail work on  buildings as they zip by. by. This makes the automobi automobile le a natural enemy for detail-scale ornament; in in fact, it produces a strong argument for works of the ‘ornament constructed’ type; one receives  probably an equally dramatic experience of a Frank Gehry building if they drive by it on a freeway compared to walking around around it. As the book shows shows,, considering the demand demandss of the automobile, the strip strip of Las Vegas makes perfect sense. Large parking lots necessitated necessitated by cars which must be negotiated before entry into a big box store are also antagonistic to the appreciation of any ornament which might be put onto the building’s façade; one has to keep an acute awareness of their surroundings lest a car suddenly back out of a space and cause physical injury. However, walk-able urban neighborh neighborhoods oods with sidewalks are sti still ll places where tthe he conditions for the appreciation of ornament thriv thrive. e. Not only are the conditions right for appreciation, but the demands of a restrictive site and large program also make applied ornament the most practical method of expression; there simply is no room for ‘organic’ highly form-based architecture to grow.

418

 Vegas Vegas,, 139: These busy bumps and subtle dents are put there for scale and rhythm and richness too, but they are as irrelevant and meaningless as the pilaster bas-relief on a Renaissance palace (which they resemble), because they are seen mostly in big spaces (often parking lots) and at high speeds. Articulated architecture today is like a minuet in a discotheque, because even off the highway our sensibilities remain attuned to its bold scale and detail. detail. Perhaps in the cacophonic context of our real landscape we are impatient with any architectural detail at all.”

 

144

 

7. Principles and Propriety in Ornament for the 21st Century___________________ It may be fair to say that among architects today the most complex understanding of ornament remains that provided by  Learning from Las Vegas. While Vegas Vegas provided  provided a ground-breaking study on the perceptual and symbolic content of ornament, the issue of a governing structural relationship and tectonically-deri tectonically-derived ved ornament w was as not dev developed. eloped. This lack of structural relationship forms one of the primary reasons why the post-modern application of ornament often receives the pejorative label of “scenography” or “historicist pastiche.” 419  It is believed th that at such accusations can be evaded by expression of contemporary structural systems and their careful integration with the ornamental system – this is the goal in general terms. Before forming principles of usage, it must be understood how ornament actually works in relation to to a human oobserver. bserver. For this E.H. Gombrich and and Learning  Learning from Las Vegas have  provided an excellent understanding. understanding. For successful conveyance of a message, a connection must  be established in the observer’s mind between the form present on the building and a conventionalized meaning meaning associated with that form. Three elements come into play: the store of knowledge in the brain, general tendencies of human perception, and the specific circumstances of perception when an observer comes into contact with an ornament. Tapping the store of knowledge in the brain falls roughly under the late 18th  century th

Associationist school of thought discussed in chapter four, dismembered in the late 19  century and revived in the 1970’s. 420  The learned knowledge in the brain form formss an individual’s culturally-determined culturally-determin ed ability to iden identify tify sign signs. s.

Geometric pat patterns, terns, for instance, can be

meaningless enrichment, or they can suddenly become vivid signs if they take on a certain configuration. The swasti swastika ka is the bes bestt example of this this.. Letters form forming ing word wordss are another example. In order for ornament ttoo successfully convey an anything, ything, it must to some degree work 419

 Kenneth Frampton, “Rappel à L’Order, The Case for the Tectonic,” from Kate Nesbit ed., Theorizing a  New Agenda for Architecture: an Anthology of Architectural Theory: 1965-1995. Princeton ArchitecturalPress, New York, 1996. 519. 420

  Learning Learning From Las Vegas, Vegas, 89: …architecture depends on its perception and creation on past experience and emotional association…” 129: “Artistically, the use of conventional elements in ordinary architecture – be they dumb doorknobs or the familiar forms of existing construction systems – evokes associations from past experience.” experience.” Venturi, Brown, and Izenour credit Colquhoun’s essay “Typology and Design Method” in Arena, in Arena, Journal of the Architectural Association, Association, June 1967, 11-14. Note that Joseph Joseph Rykwert’s 1957 “Meaning and Building” also discusses meaning in relation to past associations.

 

 

145

within existing existing conv conventions entions of meaning.

Though these conven conventions tions are subjective, wi with th

thoughtful reflection every member of any society should be aware of them, as we use them on a daily basis. If not, literature now exist existss on the linguist linguistic ic symbolism of architecture.421  An important distinction must be drawn between direct semantic messages and indirect suggestions ornament ornament often makes. By direct, it is meant that an average observer observer will be able to understand an idea or concept  from   from viewing the ornament, i.e., a written sign, 3D form or 2D image that can clearly find association with a meaning in the min mindd of an observer. Indirect ornament has no clear association with a specific idea, but plays to expressing the importance of individual architectural architectural elements, and thereby the social importance of the building. For instance, Vegas:: “…a combination of many…ornaments at the edge of a door symbolizes the importance in Vegas of the door in the face of the wall.” 422  Frank Llo Lloyd yd Wrig Wright ht also understood this in indirect direct significance-symbolism significance-symbol ism facet of ornament. “It is a mistaken notion th that at the legitimate usage of the Machine precludes ornamentation. …Little by little, the use of significant virile pattern will creep in... And the materi materials als and struct structural ural enclosures w will ill ever be iincreasing ncreasing thereby in significance”.  423  Or take Sullivan: “Both structure and ornament oobviously bviously ben benefit efit by this sympathy; each enhancing the value of the other.” 424  As both W Wright right and Sullivan’s a-hist a-historicist oricist ornament demonstrates, this indirect ornament does not necessarily rely upon conventions to achieve its effect; all it requires is a certain visual density of detail, or, failing that, use of a material that has associations of rarity and richness – Otto Wagner’s intended use of gilt boltheads at his Postsparkasse Bank would have been an excellent example of an unconventional, semi-tectonic ornament achieving this indirect communication of significance. E.H. Gombrich has provided the superlative description of the general tendencies of human perception in relation to ornament.425  These tendencies tendencies provide perhaps th thee only nearobjective part of the ornament equation. equation. First, the eye tends to follow lines, or be drawn towards towards

421

  For example: Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, Charles Jencks: Signs, Symbols, and Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980. 422   Learning Learning from Las Vegas, Vegas, 106-107. 423  Wright, Wendingen, Wendingen, 62-63.  62-63. 1925 addition. 424  Sullivan, Chats, 189. 425  Gombrich, 1-16, 117-148.

 

146

 

 points of high contrast, and it comes to rest at terminations of lines or at points which form anomalous segments of a pattern. pattern. For an architect attempting us usher her the eye to various points in a composition where important semantic ornament occurs, the use of lines, pattern breaks and contrasting colors make invaluable tool tools. s. Second, Gombrich dis discusses cusses the nature of compl complexity exity and order of form in relation to the impression made on the observer.426  When ornament becomes so elaborate that it is difficult to perceive any underlying order it loses its quality as ornament by slipping into chaos chaos – indecipherable visual nois noise. e. Therefore, if a building’s elevation elevation becomes so overloaded with ornament, none of it with any perceivable order or relation to any other part of the work, the eye will have difficulty absorbing absorbing the sight. This has little to do with the density or quantity of the ornament, and more to do with its perceivable ordering system based in repetition and geometry. A jumbled, complex m mural ural can present great diffi difficulty culty for the eye to deci decipher, pher, while an extremely busy but ordered system of tracery can achieve instant comprehension. Patterns of ordered complexity can keep the eye attempting to absorb the sight almost indefinitely, what Owen Jones described as ‘repose,’ providing one of the many side benefits of ornament – visual depth and playfulness. The circumstances at the moment of perception have a great impact on the design of ornament. These can be roughly bro broken ken down into three general considerati considerations: ons: line of sigh sight,t, distance, and time of exposure.

 Learning from Las Vegas  provides a full theoretical

understanding of of these elements for archi architecture tecture in today’s aut automotive omotive environmen environment.t. Lines of sight must be considered from where people will most often approach a building – we must consider not only Otto Wagner’s “SINGLE VANTAGE POINT”427; but also all likely points of observation. Placing ornament where nobody will see it, or where an extreme angle or prot protruding ruding mass blocks the sight are obviously obviously situation situationss to avoid. Distance between the observ observer er and the ornament will always be variable, but likely any ornament can be designed to be viewed from certain controlled areas on the site which have a rough rough ‘range.’ The greater this range, the larger

the ornament will have to be in order to be legible.  Learning from Las Las Vegas Vegas provides  provides explicative explicative 426

 Gombrich, 8-9.  Wagner, 86-87.

427

 

 

147

tables [7.1].428  Size of the buildin buildingg also becomes a consideration consideration in dist distance; ance; when a structure’s mass grows to an exceptional horizontal or vertical size, the size of any message-bearing ornament on a remote part of the building will have to increase in order for communication to be established with with a viewer. Indirect ornament accomplishes its task w with ith a certain perceivabl perceivablee density of detail; placing it on remote parts of a building where dense articulation blurs into a homogenous texture renders the effort ineffective. Time of exposure is closely related to mode of transport. transport. A pedestrian might have over a minute to view a building building as they walk by, while a motorist will will have only seconds. Operation of a vehicle also limits one’s capability for eye-wandering without endangering fellow motorists, and passengers have highly restricted lines of sight. Vegas makes clear how the automobile scale necessarily increases the the size of ornament in a su suburban burban or commercial strip situation. situation. In fact all three of these primary considerations – line, distance, time – are closely related to urban versus suburban site context. context. Some urban sites, if located next to a highway highway or at the termination of a long view might find automobile-scale ornament important, but the urban condition  predominantly takes a pedestrian scale.

[7.1] Learning from Las Vegas. Relationship between spee speed, d, distance, and scale. 428

Vegas,, 11, 17.  Vegas

 

148

 

A fourth more variable variable circumstantial co consideration nsideration is th that at of natural ligh light.t. This has significance if the ornament takes on a three dimensional form or incorporates artificial illumination. Reliefs or sculptures on the southern exp exposure osure will benefit from dramatic, sharp shadows aiding the clarity of their forms, while northern exposure ornaments will require more deep line work to maintain maintain legibili legibility. ty. Artificial light di displays splays will su suffer ffer from the problem of greatly reduced effectiveness during the day, which may not be a problem if the building’s major use predominantly occurs at night. With a general understanding of how ornament, the eye, and the brain connect, the question of content content must be addressed. Historically, ornamen ornamentt has logically always bbeen een used to express the function and significance of a building, in addition to harnessing various associative meanings. The two abov above-mentioned e-mentioned types of ornament can be adopted fo forr each of these  purposes: direct semantic ornament exposes the function, and the quantity of indirect  ornament   ornament  present expresses significance – both overall and ov various parts. A problem is the fact that architects have no control over deciding which buildings are significant enough to merit ornament; developers and the public decide how many dollars per square foot to spend on a  building. Budget becomes a very natural and honestly expressive limiting factor in showing significance. Specific questions of content inevitably involve some sense of propriety, a fickle subject today. Christopher Dresser noted as early as 1862 a problem problem which will develop into a sense sense of ‘political correctness’: It would seem difficult, at this late period of the world’s history, to originate a new scheme of ornamentation which should be an expression of sentiments; and should such  be possible we might not readily be able able to determine what should be expressed. Want of concord retards any expression of religious faith, for unless there is unanimity the views of the nation cannot be set forth by any one system of ornamentation, any more than by one style of architecture.429   Due to the nature of living in a diverse society, a single system of ornament can no longer be expected to accomplish accomplish a unified cultural cultural expression. Louis Sullivan, who took up D Dresser’s resser’s

difficult challenge most seriously, had a few things to say about the resolution of democracy, 429

 Christopher Dresser, The Art of Decorative Design. Design. American Life Foundation, Watkins Glen, New York. 1977 Originally printed by Day and Son, London, 1862. 14.

 

 

149

individualism, and ornament. ornament. Sullivan’s ornament became the archit architect’s ect’s passage to responsible responsible citizenship by individual poetic expression; the merging of an individual’s ego-driven “power” and a democratic urge.430  While Dres Dresser ser was right to consider an anyy  one system system   incapable of expressing unanimous sentiments, Sullivan’s system attempted to meet his perceived needs of modern architecture by demanding individuality in the ornamental system – there would, theoretically, be as many approaches as there are architects and every building would have a unique system of ornament.431  Sullivan’s un unity ity in uniqueness seems to have found victory, though the uniqueness has moved beyond ornament and into form. While unified cultural expression may be impossible, there are a few important ideals our society holds today which form a good starting point for any concern related to propriety: Equality, Individualism, Individualism, and Relativi Relativism. sm. Under equality, curren currentt demands of propriety sseem eem to rule out any specific associative ornament, as to associate with any one historic style would implicitly uphold uphold that style as superior – not Eq Equal. ual. Until the philos philosophy ophy of the artist has been replaced with a philosophy that celebrates copying, stylistic reference also runs against our current ideal of Individualism. Individualism. Relativism allows us to vvalue alue and appreciate the ornament ornamentss of all cultures and times, yet individualism and equality prevent us from emulating them. The concepts of equality, individualism, and relativism have specific implications for any displays of ornament. Consider if hhuman uman figures are to be empl employed. oyed. What ethnicit ethnicityy and gender should they they be presented as? Should they be dressed according to cultural sstereotypes? tereotypes? Some sculpture can manage to abstract the human figure so that it reads ambiguously; yet such ambiguity can lose a powerful powerful specificity. A possible, truthful way out, is to consult m most ost recent  population data and divide any human forms on the building among ethnicities by accurate  proportion. The building can bbecome ecome a quite literal representatio representationn of the people of the time. 430

 Sullivan, Kindergarten Chats and other Writings 150-153, 164, 188-189. In summary, democracy is the  Sullivan, Kindergarten highest form of human civilization. Democracy is about the individual; ideally, indivi individuals duals in a democratic society are allowed to engage themselves to their fullest creative capacity. capacity. Architecture is obligated to

mirror society; therefore, therefore, the architect must act as an individual. How does the architect express individual creative capacity capacity on buildings? For Sullivan, by ingenious ingenious schemes of ornament. “…a decorated structure, structure, harmoniously conceived, cannot be stripped of its system of ornament without destroying its individuality.” “Mere difference in outward form does not constitute individuality.” individuality.” Among other things, Sullivan’s ornament became his vehicle for a democratic social vision. 431  Chats, 189.  Sullivan, Chats,  Sullivan,

 

 

150

 

The already discussed items that ornament can communicate – hierarchy of significance,

function, and unified cultural ideals – are the most important, but there remain a few other items that ornament has historically historically conveyed that were discussed in previous previous chapters. They include: nationalism, politics, politics, emotive effect, and structural elaboration. elaboration. The vast majority of architecture today need have little concern with expressing anything specific about nationalism and politics,  but emotive effect and structural structural elaboration are more viable pursuits. pursuits. Guidelines for calculated use of ornament for specific emotive effects have always been an elusive subject. subject. Observing vario various us precedents, it mi might ght be possible possible to say that cert certain ain applications can give a building a soaring, lightening quality, or a heavy, massive quality; though applying lessons lessons from precedents remains largel largelyy a working of the intuition. intuition. Associations wi with th specific types of late-19th century ornament have been used for great emotive effect by Disney’s haunted-house-themed haunted-house-them ed ride. It is apparent that for the trul trulyy grand emotions architecture wishes wishes to evoke – awe, wonder – ornament alone does not suffice, but form, structure, ornament, and light all play a role. Structural elaboration and emotions can be related, as Palladio’s comment should remind us: With regards to the projections of cornices and other ornaments, it is a gross abuse to make them project too far, because when they extend further than is reasonably appropriate, apart from the fact that if they are in an enclosed space they will make it narrow and displeasing, they will frighten those who stand under them because they always look as though they are about to collapse.432   While emotions remain fickle and difficult to predict, structure definitely exists in every building, and is fairly easy to elaborate.

Kahn called “exaggeration the architect’s tool to create

ornament”,433  without applied ornament, structure and form are consequentially turned to for manipulation. According to Vit Vitruvius, ruvius, the structu structurally rally elaboration carried out by the anci ancient ent Greeks was not aimless, but had the purpose of association with the gender of the deity to be housed (as discussed in chapter 3). Today we hhave ave no comparably grand purpose for our

structural elaborations. elaborations. So what purpose shou should ld structural exaggeration serve? Several equally 432

 Palladio, 56. Learning from Las Vegas, Vegas, 139.   Learning

433

 

 

151

important points points suggest themselv themselves. es. First; as a possible aven avenue ue for the indirect-type orna ornament; ment; exaggerations of tectonics can, by the greater level of attention paid, show that the building has a greater significance. Local exaggerations occurri occurring ng within the build building ing can highlight ind individual ividual elements which are more important, important, such as entrance doors. Second, by ornamentally developing developing  primordial symbolic parts of the building (roof, frame, foundation – going back to Laugier and Semper, thinking today of Frampton), architecture makes evident and celebrates its primary function - shelter. Lastly, an important relation relationship ship exists between th thee direct semantic ornament and the indirect indirect tectonic ornament. Structural systems ttypically ypically create a regular regular pattern – th thee  beginning of ornament. With Gombrich’s discus discussion sion in mind, it is easy to see how the two two can be utilized in conjunction conjunction with one anothe anotherr for greater effect. Patterns aid legibilit legibility, y, the regular structural bays of a building can be used to break up and order ornament, and carefully breaking the system at strategic points points can show a greater import importance ance of certain items. As was discussed in chapter 4, Perrault was possibly the first to comment on this type of ordering relationship between tectonic and semantic ornament.434  

The discussion above formulates several principles. To conclude with a summation: 1.  A building should have ornament expressive of both its function and its significance. Expression of function function is achieved by direct seman semantic tic ornament. Societal significance is achieved by enriching indirect semantic ornament, and the building’s ultimate significance – shelter – is celebrated by tectonic ornament which elaborates the shelter providing structure. structure. 2.  Any ornament wishing to communicate a meaning directly must necessarily work closely with conventional associations of forms and language. 3.  The building’s tectonic systems can and should provide an ordering framework for the  building’s primary semantic semantic ornament. 4.  All ornamental considerations must consider issues of human perception and the circumstances of that perception, as discussed in  Learning from Las Vegas Vegas   and Gombrich.

434 Perrault,

65: “These are the only parts dealt with here [columns, architraves, friezes, cornices – tectonic-

symbolic ornaments], and it is their proportions that the ordonnance regulates, giving to each part the dimensions appropriate to its intended application, such as a greater or lesser size calculated for the support of a great weight or a greater or lesser capacity for accommodating delicate ornaments [semantic ornaments], which may include sculpture or moldings; these ornaments also belong to the ordonnance and  provide an even more visible sign than proportion for designating and regulating the orders.” orders.” [italics added]

 

152

 

8. The Project___________________________________________________________ In order to demonstrate the principles of ornament, ornament, a public institution institution has been selected. Public  buildings are typically built to last, fulfilling an important precondition precondition for ornament – that which is felt significant enough to last a great length of time merits the extra celebration of ornament. The project is a 1,200 student, 200,000 s.f. public high school (grades 9-12) located in an urban situation in Cincinnati’s Over-the-Rhine neighborhood.

The Site Currently the site, bounded by Sycamore, Broadway, Reading, and 12 th, is predominantly an empty parking lot. lot. On the north, the Cincinnati Cincinnati school for the Creat Creative ive and Performing Arts forms the most important immediate relationship. relationship. In this conjectural project, it is sug suggested gested that SCPA would receive renovation rather than abandonment, and would become a pre-k through 8 th  grade school and community center whose students would graduate to become part of the student  body at the proposed high school, thus creating a small urban academic campus. Just to the north of the site, SCPA forms a massive dignified block which demands some kind of acknowledgment  by any building. South of Reading Road, a ragged back edge of under-used warehouse and industrial  buildings addresses the site. Beyond lies the extreme eastern end of Central Parkway, followed  by the angular form of the Justice center. The industrial buildings, while not adding anything themselves to the site, form an effective buffer from the undesirable view of the Justice Center. One the east, Broadway addresses the site with a nearly un-interrupted late 19 th century five-story urban street wall wall of Italianate brick tenement tenement buildings. Currently, the wall is llifeless; ifeless; the majority of the buildings are vacant. On the west, the urban street wall has lost all integrity, but tthere here is more active use. A four-story parking garage creates a large mass on the southwest corner, and a one-story stainless

four story parking garage creates a large mass on the southwest corner, and a one story stainless steel diner makes a possible active use off the northwes northwestt area of the site. One block over, th thee active Main Street corridor provides a center of urban energy which would benefit from strong

 

 

153

activity in its immediate vicinity. A half-block si sized zed playground and tthe he Peaslee Center are slightly north of the sight. Grade: a not insignificant slope occurs on the site, about an 18 foot vertical rise across its narrow east-west width. Access: It is assumed that a good portion of the student body would be able to walk to school, but accommodations will be made for school buses to pull up at the building and the maximum amount of parking possible will be provided under the school’s football field (estimated 200 spaces), which will be sufficient for the faculty and staff, but not all of the over-16 student body. body. Parking privileg privileges es for remaining sp spaces aces would be distributed distributed on the basis of seniority and class rank.

Site Solution With a 200,000+ square foot program and a football field to accommodate, the site solutions  become limited. Given a desire to establish a relationship with SCPA, the options become even less numerous. The 120+ yard length of the football field could be ori oriented ented either north-south or east-west; orienting it north-south north-south would divide the site into narrow strips. Placing it east-west on the southern side of the site accomplishes many things: the field does not suffer from addressing the backside of warehouses and a large parking garage, and the parking underneath the field will have easy access at this this location from Readin Readingg and Sycamore roads. The school itsel itselff is placed so as to create an entry entry plaza between it and SCPA. In perhaps a debatabl debatablee decision, two small chunks of the urban fabric have been maintained on the northern corners of the site, which act as  public walls containing this entry plaza, making the space smaller and more defined. To demolish these small pieces of urban fabric would allow for better views of the proposed school, a larger plaza space, and a more full relationship with SCPA, but, the old elements are being maintained as a possible asset.

 

154

 

 Building Solution Solution – program reso resolution. lution. The initial parti initial parti was  was a symbolic stepped-pyramid hierarchy of major program spaces; gymnasium in the basement, with auditorium, cafeteria, and library stacked one after the other on top; all surrounded by wings of classrooms presenting a solid dignified mass to the urban environment and ‘facing’ SCPA. Light wou would ld fall between the inner pyramid and the outer wings. Egress, structural, and site issues have modified the initial parti; rather than one ‘stack,’ there are instead two stacks separated by a main public public circulation sspace. pace. This main circulation aatrium trium becomes the important public public space of the bui building; lding; all major pprogram rogram spaces relate to it. All student lockers are located on the walls of the atrium, with spaces on the periphery for art displays and study lounges. lounges. Placing all the lockers in tthe he main atrium allows the normal normal circulation corridors to become slightly narrower, and also allows the corridor walls to be used for user-created ornament.

Structural System and Ornament The structural system of the building uses the standard systems for large institutional buildings today – concrete concrete and steel frames. These two system systemss are used strategical strategically ly throughout tthe he  building. Remembering exaggeration as a source of ornament, the choice of structural systems at any one location is based in enhancing the primordial elements of foundation, frame, and roof. Therefore, the base two stories of the building are composed of massive site-cast concrete walls, the middle two are standard concrete frame, and the top attic story changes to lighter steel, which is topped with an exaggerated exaggerated continuo continuous us sheltering, overhangi overhanging ng roof. The central mass of the  building, which encloses the top-lit atrium, adopts steel framing for a less massive structural  profile. The change in structural materials for this central element is meant to enhance its unique character and also help establish a lighter character to the space. A problem occurs in the internal-external structural expression through the building’s

enclosure. Skin is meant to pprotect rotect the structure; ru running nning major structu structural ral members through the skin creates an undesirable break break in the envelope and a thermal bridge bridge situation. Some level of

 

 

155

symbolism representing the structure behind is inevitable due to practical considerations, much like Mies van der Rohe’s attached I-sections expressing the hidden structural steel. The solution will be as follows: after constructing the interior frame, which bears all the floor and roof loads, loads, two secondary skins skins will occur. The first skin, san sandwiched dwiched between th thee exterior and interior, will be a light-gage metal stud wall of sufficient thickness to meet insulation standards, which runs continuously on the outside of the structure, spanning from deck to deck. The inside of this stud wall can support the interior gypsum board finish (with a more durable knee wall built up on the inside around the people zone, taking similar details as those in the  public spaces). The expression of the skin outside of the insulation wall depends upon the material of the structure behin behind. d. Where the sstructure tructure is th thee concrete frame, mass massive ive precast concrete panels will be applied. Where the sstructure tructure behin behindd is st steel, eel, steel wi will ll be app applied. lied. The detailing of the connections from interior to exterior will be a point of tectonic ornamental elaboration. Between the orthogonal steel or precast frames occurs infill material, windows, and; resting on beams above the ground ground floor, semantic ornament panels. panels. Thus the structure is used ttoo order and divide divide the semantic fun function-describing ction-describing ornament. Each panel will bbee themed to a  particular subject or act that forms part of the educational experience; the building will directly tell you what goes on inside by using ornament rather than form, and implicitly gives society’s expectations of what you you should know about before you become a prod productive uctive adult. A standard syllabus of expected material for history, science, math, and English will be used; other extra curricular activities that could form the subject of the panels include drama, debate, music, art, and various athletics (the athletics panel will be located on the side of the school addressing the football field, and also located located underneath the gymnasium’s gymnasium’s windows). Iconography will includ includee inscribed names of famous historical, literary, or scientific figures, and various imagery associated with their their work. The panels are not inten intended ded to be directly learnt from, but but to remind

and represent the salient necessary points points of a high-school education. The material of the panels is not important so long as it is durable and of a contrasting color to the rest of the building’s material palette. It would be executed in co collaboration llaboration wi with th one or sseveral everal local artist artists. s.

 

 

156

Remembering the principles from Gombrich, there will be two kinds of panels: standard subjectrelated panels, divided by the structural bays, and two more important scenes, which run continuously – breaking the pattern of structural bays – and are located over the main north and south entrances. These two major scenes are to bbee programmed as follows: the one one on the north, addressing SCPA, depicts the major events in a student’s life in preparation for graduation. Directly over the northern doors students will be depicted progressing for graduation with one receiving a diploma – the end goal goal of education. This plaza, between SCPA and the school, school, could  be utilized for the ceremony when students graduate from one school to the other, and for the final high-school graduation graduation ceremony. The other major scene, on the south, – the football football field elevation – is meant to be an honest depiction of how youth today receive all the lessons that teach them about the world. The various sources of education will will be documented with images and simple text: parents – by intent and by example –, peers, siblings, television, film, and teachers. While teachers may not form tthe he backbone of an ind individual’s ividual’s real education education,, because the building is a school, teachers will be given the prominent position directly over the entrance. In line with the principles, the major pedestrian paths are controlled to bring students into close contact with the semantic ornaments. ornaments. Every student will walk within 20 feet of the panels at least twice twice a day. There are two opportunities for automobile-s automobile-scale cale ornament on the site. One occurs along Reading Road Road as one approaches the garage entrance. entrance. The backside of the footb football all seating provides provides a large blank wall wel welll suited to bil bill-board-like l-board-like displ displays. ays. While many thin things gs could be put on this, it might be best to simply put the school’s name in tall letters, as a motorist will have only a few seconds to view it before turning into into the garage. The second opportun opportunity ity for automobile-sized ornament occurs where 12th street intersects intersects Sycamore. As one driv drives es down twelfth, they will have about 15 seconds or so to view the western end elevation of the building. The gymnasium occurs here, and with glazing only occurring high in the space, the ornamental  panels can increase in size. They will depict stude student nt athletes in action at various sports sports – football,

 basketball, and soccer.

 

 

157

Bibliography____________________________________________________________ Primary texts:

Vitruvius, The Ten Books On Architecture, Architecture, trans. Morris Hicky Morgan. Dover Publications, Inc.,  New York, 1960 edition. edition. 167, Book VI Introductio Introduction. n. Abbot Suger, On the Abbey Church of Saint Denis and its Art Treasures, Treasures, trans.  trans. Erwin Panofsky. Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey, 1979. Leon Battista Alberti, On Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Books . trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1988. Sebastiano Serlio, On Architecture: Volume I, Books I-V of ‘Tutte L’Opere D’Architettura et  Prospetiva’ , trans. Vaughn Hart and Peter Hicks. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1996. Sebastiano Serlio, The Book of Architecture, Architecture, trans. Robert Peake, intr. A.E. Santaniello. Benjamin Bloom, Inc. Publishers, New York, 1970 reprint of 1611 London edition. Anthony Blunt, Philibert Blunt, Philibert de l’Orme l’Orme.. A. Zwemmer Ltd., London. 1958. Andrea Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans. Robert Tavernor, Richard Schofield. MIT Press paperback edition, Cambridge Massachusetts, 2002. Claude Perrault, Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns After the Method of the Ancients. Ancients . trans. Indra Kagis McEwen, intr. Alberto Pérez-Gómez. Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, Santa Monica, California. 1993. Architecture.. trans. Wolfgang and Anni Herman, Los Marc-Antoine Laugier,  An Essay on Architecture Angeles California, Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., 1977.  Nicolas le Camus de Mézières, The Genius of Architecture; or, the Analogy of that Art with our Sensations,, trans. David Brit, intro. Robin Middleton. The Getty Center for the History of Art and Sensations the Humanities, Santa Monica, California, 1992. Sir William Chambers,  A Treatise on the Decorative Part of Civil Architecture, intr. Joseph Gwilt, ed. W.H. Leeds. Leeds. London, Lockwood Lockwood and Co., 186 1862. 2. Etienne Louis Boullée, “Architecture, an Essay on Art”,  From the Classicists to the  Impressionists: A Documentary History of Art and Architecture in the Nineteenth Century  Impressionists: Century,, ed. Elizabeth Gilmore Holt. Anchor Books, New York, 1966. Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand,  Précis of the Lectures on Architecture Architecture,, trans. David Britt, intr. Antoine Picon. Getty Research Institu Institute te Publications Program, Los Angeles, 2000. Andrew Jackson Downing, The Architecture of Country Houses, int. J. Stewart Johnson. Dover Publications, New York, 1969.

Augustus Welby Pugin, Contrasts: Or, A Parallel Between the Noble Edifices of the Middle Ages, and Corresponding Buildigns of the Present Day; showing the Present Decay of Taste, intr. Henry Russell Hitchcock. Leicester University Press, Humanities Press Inc., New York, 1969. (1836)

 

 

158

Architecture. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1989. John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture. John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice. Venice. ed. J.G. Links. Da Capo Press, New York, 2003. Owen Jones, The Grammar of Ornament . DK Publishing, In., New York, 2001. Christopher Dresser, The Art of Decorative Design. Design. American Li Life fe Foundati Foundation, on, Watki Watkins ns Glen Glen,,  New York, 1977. Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, The Architectural Theory of Viollet-le-Duc: Viollet-le-Duc:  Readings and Commentary.. ed. M.F. Hearn. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990. Commentary Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings. Writings. trans. Harry Francis Mallgrave, Wolfgang Herrmann. Herrmann. Cambridge University Press, Press, New York, 1989. Frank Furness, “Hints to Designers” (1878)  Frank Furness: The Complete Works, George E. Thomas. Princeton Architectural Architectural Press, Inc. New York, 1996 revised editi edition. on. John Wellborn Root, “Architectural Ornamentation” (1885) The Meanings of Architecture:  Buildings and Writing of John Wellborn Root, Donald Hoffman. Horizon Press, New Yo York, rk, 1967. Otto Wagner, Modern Wagner,  Modern Architecture, Architecture, trans and int. Harry Francis Mallgrave. Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, Santa Monica, 1988. Adolf Loos, “Ornament and Crime ,”  ,”  from  Architecture,  Architecture, trans.  trans. Harry Mallgrave, in Midgard 1, 1987. Louis Sullivan,  Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1979. Louis Sullivan, The Autobiography of an Idea. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1956. Louis Sullivan,  A System of Architectural Ornament According with a Philosophy of Man’s  Powers. Eakins Press, New York, 1967. Frank Lloyd Wright, et. al, Frank al,  Frank Lloyd Wright: The Complete “Wendingen” Series Series,, int. Donald Hoffman. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1992. Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture. Architecture. trans. Frederick Etchells. Dover Publications Inc.,  New York, 1986. Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Phillip Johnson, The International Style.  Style.  W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1995. Louis Kahn, Essential Kahn, Essential Texts. Texts. ed. Robert Twombly, W.W. Norton & Co, NY, 2003. Cities. Random Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities.  Random house, Inc., New York, 1961.

Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Architecture. Museum of Mod Modern ern A Art, rt, New York, Second Edition reprint, 1998. Vegas.   MIT Press, Denise Scott Brown, Steven Izenour, Robert Venturi,  Learning From Las Vegas. Cambridge Massachusetts, 1977.

 

 

159

James Howard Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man Made Landscape. Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster, New York, 1993. Central Focus on Ornament texts:

E.H. Gombrich, The Sense of Order: A study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. Phaidon Press Limited, Oxford, 1979. Oleg Grabar, The Mediation of Ornament. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1992. Kent Bloomer, The Nature of Ornament: Rhythm and Metamorphosis in Architecture.  Architecture.   W.W.  Norton & Company, New York, 2000. 2000. James Trilling, Ornament: A Modern Perspective. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 2003. James Trilling, The Language of Ornament . Seattle, WA. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 2001. Brent C. Brolin,  Architectural Ornament: Banishment and Return. W.W. Norton & Company,  New York, 2000. Schafter, Debra. The Order of Ornament, the Structure of Style. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003.  Robert Jensen, Patricia Conway, and Paul Goldberger: Ornamentalism: The New Decorativeness in Architecture and Design. Design. Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., New York, 1982. Michael Snodin, Maurice Howard: Ornament: A Social History Since 1450. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1996. Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, Charles Jencks: Signs, Symbols, and Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980. Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown: Architecture Brown:  Architecture as Signs and Systems: For a Mannerist Time. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2004. Peter Collins, “Towards a New Ornament” The Fifth Column, Vol 4 No. ¾ 1984. Reprinted from the June, 1961 issue of Architectural of  Architectural Review, Review, originally  originally entitled “Aspects of Ornament.” John Summerson, “What is Ornament and What is Not” VIA III  Ornament , ed. Stephen Kiernan. Falcon Press, Philadelphia, 1977. Thomas Beeby, “Grammar of Ornament/Ornament as Grammar” VIA III   Ornament , ed. Stephen Kiernan. Falcon Press, Philadelphia, 1977. David Van Zanten, “Architectural Ornament: On, In, and Through the Wall” VIA III  Ornament , ed. Stephen Kiernan. Kiernan. Falcon Press, Philadelp Philadelphia, hia, 1977.

Joseph Rykwert, “Ornament is no Crime” The Necessity of Artifice. Artifice. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., New York. 1982. Gianni Vattimo. “Ornament/Monument” “Ornament/Monument” Rethinking  Rethinking Architecture: Architecture: A Reader in Cultu Cultural ral Theory, ed. Neil Leach. Routledge, New York, 1997.

 

 

160

  Ernst Bloch, “Formative Engineering Form; Ornament” Rethinking Ornament” Rethinking Architecture: Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. Neil Leach. Routledge, New York, 1997. Hans-Georg Gadamer, “The Ontological Foundation of the Occasional and the Decorative”  Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. Neil Leach. Routledge, New York, 1997. George Hersey, The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture: Speculations on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi. Cambridge, Venturi. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989. Theory, history, and criticism:

Alberto Pérez-Gómez,  Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. Science.   Cambridge, MIT Press, 1983. Joseph Rykwert, The Necessity of Artifice. Artifice. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., New York. 1982. Peter Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture: 1750-1950. 1750-1950. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, 1998 edition. Essays. W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1998 John Summerson, Heavenly Summerson, Heavenly Mansions and Other Essays. edition. John Summerson, The Classical Language of Architecture. Architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1993. Joseph Mordaunt Crook, Dilemma Crook, Dilemma of Style: Architectural Ideas from the Picturesque to the Post Modern. University  Modern.  University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987. Emil Kaufmann, Three Revolutionary Architects, Boulée, Ledoux, and Lequeu.  Lequeu.  The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1952. Anthony Blunt,  Art and Architecture in France 1500-1700. 1500-1700.   Penguin Books, Ltd., New York, 1980. George E. Thomas “Frank Furness: The Flowering of an American Architecture”, Frank Architecture”, Frank Furness: The Complete Works. Princeton Works. Princeton Architectural Architectural Press, Inc. New York, 1996 revised edition. John Onions, Bearers Onions,  Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the  Renaissance. Princeton  Renaissance.  Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1988. Karsten Harries, The Ethical Function of Architecture.  Architecture.  MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 2000. Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture. MIT Architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 2001.

Kenneth Frampton,  Modern Architecture 1851-1919. A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. Tokyo, Japan,  1981. Japan, Frampton, Kenneth. “Rappel â l’Ordre, the Case for the Tectonic” Theorizing a New Agenda for  Architecture: An Anthology Anthology of Architectura Architecturall Theory 1965-1995, ed. Kate Nesbitt. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1996.

 

 

161

  Cobb, Henry N. “A Note on the Criminology of Ornament: From Sullivan to Eisenman.” Eisenman.” Eleven  Eleven  Authors in Search of of a Building , New York: Monacelli Press, 1996 Moravánsky, Ákos Competing Visions: Aesthetic Invention and Social Imagination in Central  European Architecture, Architecture, 1867-1898. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1998. William J.R. Curtis, Modern Curtis, Modern Architecture Architecture Since 1900. Phaidon Press Limited, London, 2000. Lauren S. Weingarden, “Louis H. Sullivan’s Ornament and the Poetics of Archtiecture” Chicago  Architecture, 1872-1922, ed. 1872-1922, ed.  John Zukowsky. Prestel-Verlag, Munich, in association with the Art Institute of Chicago, 1987. Ornament. W.W. Norton & Co., New York, William de Wit, ed. Louis ed.  Louis Sullivan: The Function of Ornament. W.W. 1986. David Van Zanten, Sullivan’s City: The Meaning of Ornament for Louis Sullivan. W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 2000. Frank Russell, ed. Art ed.  Art Nouveau Architecture. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., New York, 1979. John Zukowsky, ed. Chicago Architecture, 1872-1922. Prestel-Verlag, Munich, in association with the Art Institute of Chicago, 1987.

 

162

 

Grades 9-12 High School, 1200 Students MAJOR PROGRAM ITEM TOTALS: Academic Core Spaces Special Education Spaces Administrative Spaces Media Center Spaces Visual Arts Spaces Music Spaces Technology Education Spaces Business Education Spaces Family and Consumer Science Spaces Physical Education Spaces Student Dining Spaces Food Service Spaces Custodial Spaces Main Hall and Circulation Spaces Auditorium Building Services Parking (240 cars) Athletic field, concessions buildings Exterior spaces

49600 4000 5800 6720 3500 6010 4800 2350 2850 32120 13450 2650 200 X 12850 41922 96000 197425

INDIVIDUAL MAJOR SPACE BREAKDOWNS: ACADEMIC CORE SPACES Classroom Classroom - Science Teacher Prep/workroom Individual Restroom Small Group Room Storage

qty 32 8 8 6 8 4

s.f. each 900 1200 400 50 150 150

SPECIAL ClassroomEDUCATION SPACES Workroom/conference Restroom/shower Special Education/Resource

qty3 2 1 1

s.f. each 900 150 100 900

ADMINISTRATIVE Reception Secretarial Principal's office Assistant principal Conference Mail/work/coffee Admin storage

qty 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

s.f. each 500 500 150 120 250 400 200

Records In-school suspension Restroom Guidance Counselor's office Guidance records storage Health Clinic

1 1 1 4 1 1

110 450 50 120 200 500

 

 

163

  MEDIA CENTER SPACES Reading Room/Circulation Librarian office Workroom/storage Main cross-connect (circulation) A/V storage Conference Room Multimedia production Room Document storage

qty 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

s.f. each 4200 120 500 380 350 250 500 300

VISUAL ART SPACES Art Room Kiln/Ceramic Storage Art Material Storage

qty 2 2 1

s.f. each 1,400 200 300

MUSIC SPACES Instrumental room Instrument storage Orchestra storage Music library Uniform storage Vocal room Ensemble room Practice Room

qty 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4

s.f. each 2,500 600 250 120 300 1200 300 80

TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION Computer Lab Storage/IT workroom Production Lab

qty 2 1 1

s.f. each 1,400 200 1600

BUSINESS EDUCATION Computer classroom Marketing classroom

qty 1 1

s.f. each 1200 900

Workroom/storage "CONSUMER SCIENCE" Life skills lab storage Laundry Child development

1 qty 1 1 1 1

250 s.f. each 1200 300 150 1200

PHYSICAL EDUCATION Gymnasium Student Lockers Student Restroom/Shower PE storage PE Office

qty 1 2 2 1 2

s.f. each 14000 700 300 800 75

Staff shower Althetic Director's office Training room PE Health classroom STUDENT DINING

1 1 1 1

75 120 400 1200

qty

s.f. each

 

164

 

Dining area Staff dining Table storage

1 1 1

8000 750 600

KITCHEN AREA Warming kitchen Prep Area Serving Area Dry storage Cooler/Freezer Ware washing Dietician office Restroom Staff locker Loading Dumpster

qty 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

s.f. each 2400 1512 1428 462 420 378 75 50 125 150 200

AUDITORIUM AND DRAMA Stage Scene shopp and storage make-up/Dressing Theatrical control Drama storage Auditorium seating (1200)

qty 1 1 1 1 1 1

s.f. each 2400 500 250 200 500 9000

MAIN HALL AND CIRCULATION Entry hall and stairs Student elevator Freight elevator Student Restrooms Student sitting spaces

qty 1 1 1 x 2

s.f. each flex. flex. flex. total 4,702 flex. rough 26870

AUDITORIUM AND DRAMA Stage Scene shopp and storage make-up/Dressing Theatrical control Drama storage Auditorium seating (1200)

qty 1 1 1 1 1 1

s.f. each 2400 500 250 200 500 9000

CUSTODIAL SPACES Workroom Custodial office

qty 1 1

s.f. each 400 100

BUILDING SERVICES Custodial closet

qty 4

s.f. each 30

Corridors

Electrical closet telecomunications Mech/Electrical space/decks Storage Central storage

4 4 1 1

30 30 9270 250 350

 

 

ATHLETIC FIELD 1 full-size football/soccer field Seating Lights Concessions buildings Field equipment storage Restrooms

165 qty

s.f. each flex. flex. flex. flex. flex. flex.

EXTERIOR SPACES qty s.f. each Covered outdoor space adjacent to building flex. Outdoor eating adjacent to cafeteria flex. Entrance plaza spaces - north and south flex. Bicycle racks, possibly sheltered. flex. Circulation ramps around building flex. PARKING Eventful stairs to entrance plaza Elevator or ramp - handicapped access Maximum parking allowable for space

qty 2

s.f. each est. 240 cars