Neo-Classic Architecture and its Reliance on the Ancients - Research Paper Example

 Neo-Classic Architecture and its Reliance on the Ancients Depending on time period and place, the definition of art has meant different things to different people. For example, most people today recognize the term ‘Renaissance’ as meaning a specific time period in Western European culture characterized by a tremendous explosion in art and architectural innovation. “The term ‘Renaissance’ might now be defined as a model of cultural history in which the culture of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe is represented as a repudiation of medieval values in favor of the revival of the culture of ancient Greece and Rome” (Campbell, 2004: v-vi). The long-dusty ideas of the past, grounded in tradition and defying attempts at progressive thought, were being shaken out, examined and, often, thrown out with the rest of the garbage. The societal shifts that began in the Renaissance were brought into greater relief with the new changes occurring toward the middle of the 1700s as Western cultures experienced a tremendous shift in the economic base from one based upon agriculture to one based on the town market and produced consumer goods. It was also a time when the shift in the long-held class systems from that of feudal organization made up of the traditionally wealthy and the barely recognized desperately poor to one consisting of a greater stratification, in which social mobility was possible had become undeniable. According to Stephen Greenblatt (1997), “This is a world in which outward appearance is everything and nothing, in which individuation is at once sharply etched and continually blurred, in which the victims of fate are haunted by the ghosts of the possible, in which everything is simultaneously as it must be and as it need not have been” (60). Within this chaotic world of change and instability, architects, artists and writers turned to the solid foundations of the ancient world, the ‘classics’, attempting to discover a solid base in what would come to be termed the Neoclassical period. The structural ruins of the ancient world had already been rediscovered along with the basic principles of science during the 1400s. The influences of the ancient Greeks and Romans on the development of visual art in the form of paintings, sculpture and architecture during the Italian Renaissance have been well-documented. The process of architectural theory, as we know from modern study, is a continuous process. Simply looking at a single building reveals that there is no one way to approach the topic and no single ‘right’ answer to the idea of what informed a particular piece. There are a number of theories regarding what is architecture and they continue to change with time, material, usage of the structure and so forth (Summerson, 1980). The ideas of architectural theory depend strongly upon who is doing the writing, what their objectives are in writing it and how well they work to illustrate with examples the ideas they are attempting to bring forward. In addition, architectural theory can be seen to rely to a great degree upon the ideas and directions informing artistic movements as they are both affected by and serve to build upon existing theory and conceptions. This suggests many of the architectural developments that took place during the Neoclassical period may have simply been influenced by the energy of the day rather than the inspirations of the classics. Only by examining the structures themselves within their context of construction can we begin to trace the true connection between the ancient classical architecture and the neo-classics of the Enlightenment period and beyond. Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, there is a great deal of truth in the statement, “architecture is the unavoidable art” (Roth, 1993: 3) as we continue to exist and grow within a constructed space. As Roth explains, “architecture is the chambered nautilus shell of the human species; it is the environment we build for ourselves, and which, as we grow in experience and knowledge, we change and adapt to our expanded condition. If we wish to understand ourselves, we must take care not to eliminate the ‘shell’ of our past, for it is the physical record of our aspirations and achievements” (Roth, 1993: 3). This is a particularly apt analogy as the oldest segment of the nautilus shell can be found in its central core. Thus, Roth suggests architectural knowledge of any type necessarily builds on the work of the past which remains forever embedded within the framework of the present. An understanding of the difficulty of attempting to trace the theory of the period might be better understood by looking more at the contemporary example. As a result of numerous theories brought forward, architectural theory today is difficult to pin down. “The majority of programs that purport to be theories of architecture seek to combine aesthetic, social and practical considerations in an integrated whole; the emphasis being either theoretical or practical, according to whether the author is an architect himself, and on whom he is writing for” (Kruft, 1994: 14). This suggests that there are as many theories today as there are architects and that this rule of thumb is as applicable to the past as it is to today. If they were fewer in number in antiquity, this is perhaps more attributable to the more limited number of architects and materials than any other factor. With increasing regularity beginning in the Renaissance, architects began recording their theory for future generations of builders, continuing to contribute to developing thought long after physical death. These discussions necessarily reveal their own influences. Most of these turn, as do many architects today, to the wisdom of the ancients, particularly one Roman architect who went by the name of Vitruvius. Vitruvius was an artillery engineer working during the reign of the first Roman emperor Augustus. However, his importance to history was as an architect and an author. “His ten books on architecture, De Architectura (trans. 1914), are the oldest surviving work on the subject. They consist of dissertations on a wide variety of subjects relating to architecture, engineering, sanitation, practical hydraulics, acoustic vases, and the like. Much of the material appears to have been taken from earlier extinct treatises by Greek architects” (Calter, 1998). In these volumes, Vitruvius provides us with three basic elements of design that must be considered when attempting to understand architecture. These elements include utility, flexibility and beauty. “By utility, Vitruvius means the functional arrangement of rooms and spaces so that there is no hindrance to use and so that a building is perfectly adjusted to its site. Firmness referred to foundations that were solid and to building materials being used wisely to do their required work. Beauty meant that ‘the appearance of the work is pleasing and in good taste, and [that] its members are in due proportion according to correct principles of symmetry” (Roth, 1993: 11). These definitions have within them tremendous flexibility and shifting emphasis. What comprises the ‘functional arrangement of rooms and spaces’ changes as a result of structural purposes, uses, social customs in engaging in these types of activities and a host of other variables. Building materials have also changed over the years with advances in technology and the creation of processes that accommodate new ideas. Beauty is defined as something ‘pleasing and in good taste’ yet these concepts also shift from one population to another and from one individual to another. What this discussion should make clear is that part of the reason for the shifting definition of architectural theory is also based upon the shifting ideas and innovations of new architects entering the field, building upon these ideas and contributing their own voice to the concept. The neoclassicists were undoubtedly building off of each other as much as they were building on the ideas of the past. As Thoenes (2003) illustrates, it is primarily through the architect’s ability to translate his ideas into written arguments for a specific design element or spatial allocation that the various individuals involved in the planning were able to participate in the design. As the necessity for writing about architecture became more and more developed, new architects of the succeeding generation were able to learn from these examples and discussions and develop their own ideas regarding what worked, what didn’t and how various elements of the architectural thought worked in with the elements of art history and political-social needs. As a result, much of the neoclassic style is attributed to the mathematical advances reached by the ancients and only brought back into vogue by the need for greater structures that were solid and dependable for their uses. As more and more individuals began studying the ancient buildings, it was noticed that they presented almost perfect symmetry in their design and construction and that they offered a functional simplicity that remained focused on the expected use of the structure. The particular characteristics of neoclassic architecture include an attention given to the regularity and clarity of the various parts, the inclusion of specific yet simple mathematical proportions and a deliberate emphasis on a renewal of old Roman architectural styles in the form of columns, hemispherical domes, geometrically flawless designs and symmetry (Summerson, 1980). Much of this style of architecture is based upon the discovery of the Golden Means, also called the Golden Standard, used throughout antiquity. Symmetry in design is especially emphasized throughout the ancient structures of Greece and Rome. In structures such as the Parthenon, which provides a strong example of ancient architecture, there is a strong emphasis on functional simplicity. The structure is balanced based on careful mathematical principles that take into account the weight of the roof as well as the aesthetics and uses of the final structure. In this design, there seems to be very little evidence for architectural features installed simply for appearance. In structure after structure of the ancient world, these factors come into play. One of the most ancient and impressive buildings in Rome is today called simply The Coliseum. The structure’s construction was started under the direction of Vespasian, construction continued under Titus and the building was finally completed by Domitian (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986). The Coliseum is massive, originally sitting solidly on marshy ground between two hills, and it covers about six acres of total ground area. It is a rough ellipse in shape that measures 615 feet by 510 feet (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986). It has about eighty different entrances to accommodate the entrance and exit of the nearly 50,000 spectators that would attend events there and a central oval arena in which the events would take place (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986). Events took place upon a wooden floor underneath which is a series of passageways and rooms where gladiators and wild beasts were held until show time. Interior seats were arranged in tier formation and brackets are still evident that were used to hang a canopy cover for shade within the arena. The exterior of the building reveals where it gets its great strength. The tiers of seats are supported by a series of arches and columns rising 158 feet high, the equivalent of a 12-15 story building today. The lowest level utilized concrete for the foundations and travertine for the piers and arcades with tufa filler between the piers (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986). Columns on this lowest level were done in the Doric style which is very supportive and strong but does not present a great deal of decoration. The second level utilizes the same construction method and materials, but introduces Ionic columns, which are tapered and more elegant looking with some decoration appearing on them. The third level, though, switches to brick-faced concrete as the primary construction material and again switches column styles to the most ornate form of Corinthian column. This ancient sports stadium was easily adjusted to accommodate a wide variety of public activities while providing a means of adequate crowd control throughout the process. It is no surprise, then, to see its form replicated throughout architectural history. The relationship between the Coliseum and the various sports stadiums found around the world today cannot be denied. An aerial view of just about any American football stadium reveals the same approach to public accommodation and, in many cases, even the idea of being able to open the roof up to the sky. However, there have also been many other structures that have looked to the Coliseum for inspiration. One such building is the Somerset House in England, which was constructed by William Chambers in 1776-1780. “The Strand front of Somerset House, with multiple courtyards and vaulted passages, deliberately echoes the Roman Coliseum. The Coliseum (1st century AD) consisted of several stories with different types of order being superimposed … they are placed appropriately with the strong, plain Doric at the bottom, then the lighter Ionic, followed by the elegant Corinthian and perhaps at the top a Composite. These are featured in Somerset House’s exterior-story” (Tse, 2004). The way in which these buildings are constructed also demonstrates that the builders were conscious of how to work with nature, giving them a natural cooling effect for the crowds and having some influence on modern designers working to develop ‘green’ architecture. Originally constructed as a monument to the emperor’s greatness and his dedication to his people, the Coliseum has continued to lead the way for architectural theories from the ancient past. Beginning as a symbol of power, the structure demonstrated to those of the Enlightenment Period how to create a sturdy, multi-level building. By the age of Modern construction, it was providing a prime example of how to architecturally manage crowd control. Architecture was changed forever in the late 18th and 19th centuries as changes in technology and the need for larger structures introduced the need to begin discovering new materials to use in order to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of the industrialized world. Of course, buildings throughout time have had to overcome these challenges – the Parthenon, St. Peter’s Dome to name a few – but with the new needs came new access to building materials such as steel and cement that drove architects of the Chicago School in America to begin discovering what they could do to quickly and affordably reach the sky. The Chicago School was a group of architects who were united by two major characteristics. The first characteristic was “highly utilitarian, marked by a strict adherence to function and structure, and was in great part derived from certain forms of urban vernacular building in Europe and the eastern United States” (Condit 1998: 1) which was itself influenced by ancient stability of structure. These architects and engineers also shared a dedication to the malleable elements of plastic justified as introducing “a new theoretical spirit and the conscious determination to create rich symbolic forms – to create, in short, a new style expressive of contemporary American culture” (Condit, 1998: 1). It was through the representative works produced by these architects that the idea of the steel-frame building came forward. The incorporation of steel-frames made it possible to lighten the overall building load by including large blocks of glass windows in the development of their buildings, while still maintaining structural integrity. As the concept of the skyscraper developed, the structure type also gained a relatively standardized set of uses based on the examples of the past. Public elements of the building’s use such as gathering areas and vendor stations were most often located on the first floor providing the greatest space for ornamentation and conveying an impression of solidity and widespread functionality. From the first few floors to the floors just under the upper levels was considered the ‘business end’ of the building, being primarily devoted to work rooms, offices and the necessary amenities stations such as restrooms and break rooms necessary for occupation. The top floors and upper space of the building came to represent the capital element of the classic Greek column which was intended not only to serve as the balancing element of support but also provide the building’s ornament and character (Billington, 1985). Some of the important architects who contributed to these concepts were Henry Hobson Richardson, Daniel Burnham, William LeBaron Jenney, Dankmar Adler, Martin Roche, William Holabird, John Root, Louis Sullivan, Solon S. Beman and the very popular Frank Lloyd Wright before he branched out into more residential developing. Architects in England took a different approach, creating designs such as the previously mentioned Somerset House by William Chambers. This house, built between 1776 and 1780, interacts with its environment with the same sort of subtlety found in the Colosseum. It is constructed with a great deal of attention given to the placement of courtyards and vaulted passages in such a way that air movement through the spaces is encouraged as a means of keeping the home cool in summer and warm in winter. While it may be argued that these elements of the house are merely accidental, the further details of the house make it clear that the architect had closely studied the elements of the classic design that made it functional for the people that used it. The house mimics the exterior façade of the Colosseum in its progression of columns from the Doric style at the bottom through the Ionic in the middle level to the Corinthian style on the top floor. At the same time that it was working to mimic the concepts of antiquity in its sturdiness and permanence, the structure was also striving to capture a sense of its own past in recreating elements of the previous and historic Somerset House which had been permitted to decay to near complete ruin. The design for the North Wing, for example, was based on drawings that were made of it prior to the building’s decay (Borer, 1977). In designing the new grounds in this way, Chambers was both influenced by the classical architecture of the ancients and brought the neoclassic generation into awareness of the environmental connection thus helping with the birthing of the picturesque garden tradition. Bibliography Billington, David P. (1985). The Tower and the Bridge: The New Art of Structural Engineering. Princeton University Press. Borer, Mary Cathcart. (1977). The City of London: A History. New York: McKay. Calter, Paul. (1998). “Ad Quadratum, the Sacred Cut & Roman Architecture.” Dartmouth College. Available 25 March 2010 from Campbell, Gordon. (2004). Renaissance Art and Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press. Condit, Carl W. (1998). The Chicago School of Architecture. University of Chicago Press. Greenblatt, Stephen (Ed.). The Norton Shakespeare. New York: Norton, 1997. Kruft, Hanno-Walter. (1994). “What is Architectural Theory?” A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present. London: Zwemmer: 13-19. Roth, Leland M. (1993). Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History and Meaning. New York: Harper Collins. Summerson, John. (1980). The Classical Language of Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson. Thoenes, Christof. (2003). “Introduction.” Architectural Theory. Bernd Evers, Christof Thoenes et al (Eds.). Koin: Taschen: 8-19. Trachtenberg, Marvin & Isabelle Hyman. (1986). Architecture, from Prehistory to Post-Modernism. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Tse, Ana. (2004). “Neoclassical Architecture and the Influence of Antiquity.” Art Resources. (2004). Available 25 March 2010 from Read More