Classical Architecture and Its Importance Today - Essay Example

ical Architecture and its Importance Today The term ical when it applies to anything architecture-related, generally refers to anything that contains elements of the ancient structures of Greece and Rome built between roughly 850 BC through 476 AD. This means something built according to the three orders of architecture developed in ancient Greece based on column style (doric, ionic, or corinthian) or the two orders of architecture developed in ancient Rome using different column styles (tuscan or composite). However, people studying architecture today might be more likely to point to the time period between 1400 and 1600 Italy as the source of classical architecture because it was here that the Italian Renaissance took place and these ancient orders of building were rediscovered and put into practice. Between these two time periods, the Roman church had dominated architectural construction with darkened halls and brooding structures. When the artists of the Renaissance rediscovered the beauty, usefulness and stability of the ancient structures that could still be found dotting the landscape throughout parts of Italy, they were able to quickly appreciate the clean lines and precise mathematics of the ancients. In their eyes, these structures represented in their very foundation stones a clarity of thought and a golden age of wisdom that had been lost from the world when the Roman empire fell. Reading texts discovered from the ancient world, these Renaissance architects realized that these structures also represented a longed for period of social and political growth. The great economic shift that was taking place during the Renaissance, with more people coming to live and work in towns rather than being a mostly agrarian-based society, gave rise to a social middle class which suddenly also made it necessary for the wealthier class to designate themselves as different than the average shop-keeper. 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). To answer both the need for distinguishing pomp and circumstance in their structures of business and residence and to provide the desired sense of stability and solidity while also providing something new and time-tested, architects of the Renaissance provided a return to the historic symbols of the ancient world and the sharp, mathematically precise lines of classical architecture. Trying to pin down a specific definition of classical architecture is roughly as difficult as attempting to pin down any single definition of any other architectural movement. “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). However, most seem to turn, inevitably, to the same foundational principles written down by the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius, one of the most important figures in architectural history. “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). It was through Vitruvius that we gained the three basic elements of design that have formed the tripod of architectural theory ever since. According to Vitruvius, designers or architects must take into account 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). The concept of a ‘functional arrangement of rooms and spaces’ is broad enough to allow for a wide variety of design based on the intended purpose of the building, how it will be used, prevailing social customs or any number of other variables. Because Vitruvius left the question of appropriate building materials open as well, insisting instead that the materials should be appropriate for the structure’s work, architects have been encouraged to explore new substances as they became available, leading even up to todays use of steel and glass. Within his writings, Vitruvius defines beauty as something ‘pleasing and in good taste’ which is again widely open to interpretation. The architects of the Renaissance, going back and labeling the structures of the ancients as classical architecture and studying its varieties to clearly understand the differences of styles, were doing what architects have done since the profession started - building off of the ideas of the past. What makes classical architecture unique is the way in which it consistently hails from the past but yet constantly gives off an impression of the new of the contemporary age. Theories of architecture are typically distinguished based on the time in which theyre developed, the materials that are available at the time, the planned activities for the structure being created and a number of other factors, but classical architecture has not lost its status even with all these new developments (Summerson, 1980). However, all of the architects working from this time forward have relied heavily on the skills and understanding of architects before them with the ability to put their ideas and their theories down on paper, and connect these to the completed physical works in order to convey these concepts forward into future generations. To better understand how classical architecture continues to feel appropriate even in our modern times, it is helpful to trace some of the parallels in approach and design between the ancient world and the new. To begin the journey, it must be recognized that the classical lines and shapes of the ancient world first convey to us a sense of stability and permanence that other forms cannot duplicate, thus providing us with an unavoidable deep-seated sense of comfort and security. 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). The concepts developed by those ancient architects remain embedded in everything that has been built since even into the 21st century, and are likely to continue well beyond our own time. In the above quote, Roth is suggesting that all architectural knowledge must build on the previous work of the past, causing it to be forever embedded within the framework of the present. As a result, even when neoclassic architects in the Renaissance period were designing their buildings without direct reference to the ancients, they couldnt help but include elements already explored by those same ancients. The newer architects were simply reinventing the wheel, so to speak. However, it remained important that architects put their ideas in writing if for no other reason than to allow those involved in the actual construction and placement of elements to participate in the design and construction process (Thoenes, 2003). As structures became increasingly larger to accommodate ever increasing population sizes and structural uses, architects again found themselves relying on the mathematical advances reached by the ancients as expressed in their building styles. This was due, in part, because continued 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 their association with the ancients through 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, most of the neoclassic architecture is based on the Golden Mean or the Golden Standard, which happens to have a very close tie to the concept of pi which is discovered plentifully in nature and is considered to represent a perfect balance. Based on this measure, the classical structures of Greece and Rome demonstrate a very strong emphasis on symmetry in design. One of the most recognizable ancient structures that continues to teach architects about the most important elements of classical architecture is the Roman Coliseum, constructed through the reigns of three different emperors beginning with Vespasian, through the entire reign of Titus and completed during the reign of Domitian (Trachtenberg & Hyman, 1986), yet it still stands relatively strong today and continues to give up its secrets slowly. Although modeled after the lessons of the ancient past, the neoclassical architects coming out of the Renaissance were forced to forever change some of these concepts of architecture in the late 18th and 19th centuries thanks to the changing needs of the increasingly industrialized world. However, this has also been a recurring theme throughout the history of architectural design. Architects from the Parthenon to St. Peter’s Dome have constantly been challenged with the need to discover more appropriate materials to meet the engineering problems of the expected buildings use. Fortunately, the same forces that were changing the needed uses of the structures were also bringing into play new materials with which to accomplish the goals, such as the introduction of steel and cement into building design. At once new and bold, these new materials again ushered in a return to the classical styles as a means of pushing design ever further, such as can be seen in the American Chicago School movement. 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). Driven by classical design, inspired by new materials, it was through this particular group of architects that the concept of the steel-frame building came forward. The incorporation of steel-frames, reminiscent of the ancient columns that once made up the support structure of the ancient world, made it possible to lighten the overall building load as it expanded ever upward through the inclusion of large blocks of glass windows in the development of the buildings instead of heavier bricks and mortar, while still maintaining structural integrity through the concept of the ancient columns. Drawing even more on concepts of ancient design, the skyscraper developed a natural column-oriented order with the foundational Doric utilitarian elements being found on the lower floors, the functional yet aesthetic elements of the Ionic found in the central elevation meeting rooms and board rooms and the highly ornamental and celebrated Corinthian level to be found at the very top (Billington, 1985). 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 12 April 2014 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 12 April 2014 from Read More