Ancient Influence on Neoclassicism Architecture - Research Paper Example

 Ancient Influence on Neoclassicism Anyone studying basic art and architecture today is likely to point to the time period between 1400 and 1600 Italy as the defining centuries that mark Western society’s shift from the church-dominated darkness of the middle ages to a new period of enlightenment and innovation. However, they are also likely to notice a heavy dependence of this innovation and enlightenment on the ideas and achievements of the ancient past. From the Renaissance forward, art and architecture was strongly influenced by the remnants of awe-inspiring buildings created by the ancient Greeks and Romans and the ideas that were expressed in their surviving art and sculpture. While the church hadn’t yet lost its grasp on the hearts and minds of the creators, as evidenced in the styles that would emerge during the Baroque period, the clean lines and precise mathematics of the ancient world had come to represent a unique kind of clarity of thought, a golden age of wisdom and forethought and a period of social and political progression. As society grew, bringing on new innovations, scientific realizations and improved exploration, there was a corresponding shift in the old understandings of life. No longer did people find it necessary to survive on agriculture alone, towns and cities had begun making themselves felt, introducing the possibility of making a living on commerce or through providing services rather than growing crops. This economic shift introduced a corresponding shift in social systems as the wealthiest individuals were no longer confined to just those who held land and a comfortable middle class began to emerge among the service providers of the town. 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). With everything their forefathers knew about the world and the ‘good’ life changing in front of their eyes, architects answered the need for stability, solidity and a sense of newness with a return, again, to the historic symbols of a golden age of man that had transcended time. Although they had stood on the same ground for centuries, the structural genius of the Greek and Roman temples and other structures of antiquity had only been recognized since the early 1400s. In attempting to determine what caused the neoclassicists to return to the forms of the ancients, it is necessary first to realize that architectural theory is a process that continuously builds off of the ideas of the past. That the neoclassicists did it should thus not be a surprise. The question is, why did they select the structures of antiquity to be the basis for their new and modern, new era designs? It must also be considered that these architects were working less on a desire to repeat the patterns of the ancient past than they were in attempting to create a new image for the future. As modern study has made clear, there is not simply a single means by which one might approach a topic and no pure means of discerning just what might have informed a given architect in the development of his (or her) ideas. Several theories of architecture have been brought forward over the years, each different based on the time in which they’re developed, the materials that are available to that generation, the planned activities for the resulting structure and a number of other factors (Summerson, 1980). These theories also rely heavily on the skills and understanding of the individual putting it all down in writing, their purpose in defining their theories and their ability to draw on examples as a means of illustrating their ideas. Because architecture does not exist in a vacuum, it must also be realized that the prevailing artistic thought in a given time frame, the political climate and the general consensus of the people all play a role in the shaping of a building. The best way to trace a true connection between the neoclassicists and the ancients is therefore reliant on an examination of representative structures for evidence of deliberate parallels in approach and design. In undertaking such an investigation, one must remain firmly rooted in the idea that architecture is unavoidable. Whether we choose to observe it or not, the styles and approaches taken to the buildings that shape our daily lives have an effect on how those lives are experienced. 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). In other words, the accomplishments, mistakes and understandings of the past contribute to what is built today and in the future. Just as the oldest segment of the nautilus shell is found in its central core, it should not be surprising to find elements of the ancient structures within the buildings created throughout history following this period. 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 which means finding an element of the ancient structures within the structures of the neoclassic period does not automatically suggest that the neoclassic architects were attempting to build specifically on the ideas of the ancients. Whether speaking of the theories of the past or those of the present, it remains difficult to pin down just what elements of arhictrctural theory have worked to inform a specific work unless the architect himself have taken the time to explicitly write it down in full detail. Even then, he or she may not be fully aware of the structures that have influenced various decisions made in the design or application or how this might translate to other structures developed during the same time frame. Attempts to present architectural theory as such are further complicated by the sheer variety and volume of the elements that can serve to influence it. “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). Thus, there may be as many theories of architecture as there are architects, or perhaps even as there are buildings that have been constructed, each further complicated by the writings and ideas of the architects that have gone before, each attempting to simplify and codify their vision and most turning, inevitably, to the same foundational principles brought forward in antiquity and preserved for future generations by the Roman architect Vitruvius. Although Vitruvius’ primary position in life was serving as an artillery engineer for the first Roman emperor Augustus, 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 his work, Vitruvius outlined the three basic elements of design that have served as the tripod of architectural theory ever since. In designing a building, Vitruvius said, one must consider the elements of beauty, flexibility and utility in near equal measurements. “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). It is probable that Vitruvius meant for his definitions to be broadly worded so as to allow for widespread interpretation as he also did not specify whether one element should take precedence over another. The concept of a ‘functional arrangement of rooms and spaces’ is capable of changing greatly depending on the intended structural purposes, uses of the structure, social customs or any number of other variables. Rather than specifying that buildings should be constructed with marble for beauty or limestone for economy, Vitruvius left this open as well, insisting instead that the materials should be appropriate for the structure’s work. This opened up thought as to what types of building materials there might be and a broad application of new building materials that have become available thanks to advances in technology and the creation of processes that accommodate new ideas. Vitruvius defines beauty as something ‘pleasing and in good taste’ which is again open to wide interpretation as society shifts and moves with new ideas, new exposures and new ways of creating with new and old materials. As each generation of architects has added his voice to the growing collection of architectural theory, it has thus become more and more difficult to trace the originatking influence for the designs they produced. It seems clear from this exploration of the development of theory that the neoclassical architects must have been building off of the ideas of their contemporaries as much as they were building off of the ideas of the past. Without the architect’s ability to put his structural ideas into written form, those involved in the actual construction and placement of elements would be rendered incapable of participating in the design (Thoenes, 2003). As writing about architecture and the ideas that generated it became more and more prevalent leading into the neoclassical period, new builders were able to learn from the written examples regarding what worked and thus pull these ideas into play once it again started to be necessary to create impressively large structures to meet the needs of growing populations as towns and cities developed. As a result, much of the Greek and Roman influence on the neoclassic style is attributed to the mathematical advances reached by the ancients. This was because increasing studies of the ancient structures revealed that they presented almost perfect symmetry in their design and construction at the same time that they offered functional simplicity focused on the expected use of the structure. Defining characteristics of neoclassic architecture reflect this association with the ancients in a variety of ways, including the attention given to the regularity and clarity of the various elements, the inclusion of specific yet simple mathematical proportions and a deliberate emphasis on columns, hemispherical domes, geometrically flawless designs and symmetry (Summerson, 1980). Like the structures of antiquity, a great deal of neoclassic architecture is based on what is referred to as the Golden Means, also called the Golden Standard, which happens to have a very close tie to the concept of pi, a mathematical equation found reflected in many aspects of nature and thus considered to be the perfect balance. The ancient structures of Greece and Rome demonstrate a very strong emphasis on symmetry in design. In structures such as the Parthenon, a very strong and well-known example of ancient architecture, functional simplicity plays a significant role. 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. Unlike the designs of the Baroque period that immediately preceded the Neoclassicist era, the Parthenon provides little evidence of architectural features installed simply for appearance. These concepts of symmetry, mathematical perfection, balance and structural simplicity appear again and again throughout the structures of the ancient world. One of the most familiar ancient structures in Rome today is simply referred to as the Coliseum. This imposing structure was constructed through the reigns of three different emperors beginning with Vespasian, throughout the entire reign of Titus and finally completed under Domitian (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986). The building is massive and stable despite having been originally built upon marshy ground between two hills. The structure’s footprint covers approximately six acres of total ground area. The basic shape of the Coliseum is that of a basic oval with the shorter diameter measuring approximately 510 feet at its widest point and the longer diameter spanning approximately 615 feet (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986). The building gains its strength from its exterior structure. The tiers of seats expected to support the weight of thousands are supported by a series of arches and columns. In total, the Coliseum rises 158 feet high, which is the equivalent of 12-15 storeys in a modern day structure. Materials used in the lowest level of the Coliseum included concrete for the foundations and travertine for the piers and arcades (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986). Tufa filler was used between the piers to provide greater stability. Columns on this lowest level were created using the Doric style. This was the earliest form of column style developed in ancient Rome and is noted for its high provision of support but not noted for its aesthetic appeal as compared to later column forms. Ionic columns were used on the second level of the Coliseum although the same basic building materials were used. Ionic columns tend to taper as they rise, giving them a much more elegant look compared to their Doric cousins. In many cases, Ionic columns will also contain some form of decoration on them in addition to the tapering shaft. The upper level of the Coliseum is constructed using brick-faced concrete as brick is a lighter-weight material than travertine. On this level, Corinthian columns were used featuring a high level of decoration and reinforcing the opulence of the higher ranked citizens. The interior of the oval-shaped building features a central oval area on or near the ground level that served as the entertainment floor. Around this central floor were a series of levels that provided seating for the spectators. It is difficult to determine just exactly what the original structure featured, but it is estimated to have once had approximately 80 different entrances into the central area and was capable of meeting the entrance and exit needs of almost 50,000 spectators (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986). Archaeological investigation has shown that events taking place in the coliseum did so on a heavy wooden floor that was raised above a labyrinth of rooms and passageways. These areas were where gladiators and wild beasts were kept until showtime. Interior seats of the Coliseum were arranged in a simple tier formation that included seat numbers to keep the crowds orderly and there is still some evidence of brackets that may have been used to hang a canopy over the watching people, providing shade on hot days or some respite from less than perfect weather. The neoclassical architects were forced to change the concepts of architecture forever in the late 18th and 19th centuries as a result of changes in structural needs in response to the industrializing world. This was not a new problem as architects from the Parthenon to St. Peter’s Dome were faced with the same needs to develop more appropriate materials to meet the engineering needs of the projected needs. Yet the same forces that were changing the way of life of the people were also introducing the materials that would meet those needs in the form of steel and cement. The introduction of these innovations became the driving force of America’s Chicago School as these architects began discovering just how far they could push their deigns. The first characteristic of the neoclassically inspired Chicago School 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). It was through the representative works produced by these architects that the idea of the steel-frame building came forward, yet even this innovation was based upon the concepts first explored within the ancient structures. 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, yet the structure was strangely reminiscent of the Roman’s columns. Uses of the building perhaps naturally also acquired the symbolic hierarchy of the columns of the Coliseum. The skyscraper, regardless of who was developing it, developed a natural order as the basic foundational elements of the building, the utilitarian elements, were confined to the lowest floors. These included the common areas such as lobbies or convention meeting rooms, the storefronts and the building services, much like the functional elements of the Doric columns found in the ancient structure. The central areas of the skyscraper were the business elements of the column, functional yet aesthetic, private yet useful, pike the Ionic placement found in antiquity. Representing the highly ornamental and much celebrated Corinthian level, the skyscrapers reserved the top levels of the building for the ruling class and as the area that gave the building its unique character and decoration (Billington, 1985). Neoclassical architects in England took a different approach to the Coliseum’s lessons, creating designs such as the reconstruction of the Somerset House under the design direction of William Chambers. This private estate was constructed from 1776-1780 in a way that allows it to interact with the environment in much the same way that the Coliseum was designed to do. Vaulted passages and courtyards are strategically placed to encourage proper air flow through the structures for cooling and heating purposes (Boer, 1977). The Coliseum used this same technique to facilitate the comfort of the viewers. The exterior façade of the Coliseum is repeated in the exterior façade of the Somerset House. This is most evident in the progressive use of columns rising from the Doric style at the bottom through the Ionic in the middle level to the Corinthian style on the top floor. In using this façade, the designer was deliberately calling to mind the grandeur of the past. 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 22 April 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 2 April 2010 from Read More