An Account of the Asymmetrical Layout of the Temples on the Acropolis - Essay Example

An Account of the Asymmetrical Layout of the Temples on the Acropolis The temples under consideration are the Propylaea and the other adjacent buildings Erechetheum and the temple of Athena Nike’. These buildings share a common unprecedented design since they do not conform to the rule of classical architecture by being asymmetrical. An analysis of planning indicates no geometrical orientation of the buildings with respect to each other. It is suggested that Mnesikles the architect of Propylaea designed buildings that would not challenge the Parthenon (Beard, Mary, & Henderson, 53). The question is what are the factors that led to the irregularity in the design of these three buildings? This paper sorts to answer the question as to why this structure ended up in a symmetrical format. It also focuses on some of the theories suggested by academics and archeologist such as Doxiadis and the emerging issues related to architecture. According to Jenkins (117), the irregular location of buildings may be one of the real reasons for the imperfection of the buildings secondary to the Parthenon. This matter has not been fully exhausted over the past and therefore should be investigated from the architects purposeful design plan. It is proposed that the Erechetheum, the Propylaea and other temple are blemished, in respect to the classical rules. The controversies in the second buildings on the Acropolis may be proved and valuated as intentional disorderliness. It is claimed that Mnesikles who designed the Propylaea and Erechetheum and the Athena Nikè did not want to challenge the perfection and superiority of the Parthenon by intentionally making them imperfect by unfinished architectural, blemishing, fragmentation, articulation and limiting of the scale (Beard, Mary & Henderson. 52). Some of the main reasons for the asymmetric nature of the temples are: irregular sites on which they were constructed and the chances that the Propylaea was not finished contrary to Mnesikle’s desire. The construction on Propylaea started in 437 BCE and stopped in 432BCE due to the wars of the Peloponnesian. The construction was resumed later, though it remained unfinished. It is suggested that the south wing that is opposite to the Pinakotheke, is smaller than expected due the anomalies preventing the construction on the site flanking the rock outcrop where the Temple of Athena Nike’ is located. In addition, two symmetrical wings of better dimensions compared to Pinakotheke, were not built on the eastern side. Similarly an open arcade to replace the west wall in the opposite wing to the Pinakotheke, which would enhance free access to the Temple, was not built. The Ionic order in the central, exterior Doric columns and covered porch are complete, but due to the combination of these orders, both are completely incomplete in the definition of the building as a whole (Beard, Mary & Henderson. 54). It is contended that these imperfections are in relation to the intension of the architect and not simply an omission. As stated by Doxiadis, he sees incompleteness as the architect’s material reflection of his invention of time, the fourth dimension that analyses the other aspects of physical reality. In relation to the Acropolis, several examples of incompleteness that indicate a pending synthesis are listed. For instance, there are several components in the Acropolis of Athens, which show that the architect intentionally left some of his buildings unfinished to give material expression, visual to his design of time as the fourth dimension of the synthesis. Similar case is with the incomplete Erechetheum, which portrays a picture of the pending completion of the whole synthesis (Jenkins, 119). The visual impression made by the Erechetheum and the Propylaea leaves considerable uncertainty about their completeness. No such question would have arisen in the visitor’s mind regarding the Parthenon, which was the major temple. The difference between direct and indirect design” is clear in the architecture of the Acropolis. Only the main temple absolutely illustrates the design criteria for the Doric order and it is easier to identify the imperfections in the other buildings on the Acropolis than to account for the perfection of the Parthenon. The Acropolis site did not indicate restless layout, a chaotic as in the case of Delphi. Amongst the secondary constructions on the Acropolis are temples which could not all be built on the measures of treasuries. Therefore the designer keenly used different architectural techniques to juxtapose the divine arrangement of the main temple with the imperfect, human order of the ancillary buildings (Gagarin, 125). It is also suggested that the designer resorted to employing a more emphatic element like blemishing and fragmentation instead of a mere lack of complete articulation as seen in the approach constructions at Delphi. Blemishing is described as an inclusive type of imperfection, consisting of the incompleteness of architectural articulation. Blemishing is therefore taken to be purposeful technique employed by the architect of the supporting buildings on the acropolis (Osbourne, 45). At the same time fragmentation is considered an element of this technique. Blemishing the form and presence of a building affect imageability and breaching the rules of architectural typology, which stresses its place in the pecking group order and ensures it does not challenge the complete articulation of the main temple. As examined by Beard, Mary, & Henderson (57), the design plan portrayed in the Erechetheum, also designed by Mnesikles, is as controversial as that of the Propylaea. This auxiliary temple on the Acropolis is totally asymmetrical with its constituent parts on various levels and its interior spaces functionally orthogonal. The anomalies of the site and the remains of a previous temple may have caused the architect to break up the structure in a seemingly arbitrary manner. The Ionic order is employed in two of the three porches, which places it aside as quintessential different from the main temple. Not being peripteral it is also quintessential different from the main temple, and the columns on the north porch are set up in line with the Prostyle scheme. Four in front and two setbacks, while the Prostyle porch on the east side elongates across the whole width of the building. Caryatids are used on the south porch. They portray the feminine character of the Erechetheum, but according to the design they are a negation of the clarity of the Greek system of trabeation (Beard, Mary, & Henderson 63). Concerning the complexity and ambiguity portrayed in the relationship between the approach buildings and the Doric temple in the two temple complexes, as well as the totality of the architectural design at Delphi and Athens it can be concluded that the design are characterized by the use of different architectural orders which vary in deviations and scale from the classical orders of symmetry. Furthermore, the orders are fragmented and incomplete in the secondary buildings. This is accomplished by means of irregular proportions coupled with inconsistencies external and internal design. Contrary to the other buildings, the main temple is a normative, single building on a monumental scale, meticulously finished and refined. The ambiguities in the design may be justified and interpreted as purposeful disorderliness. As explained by Moffett, Marian, Michael Fazio, and Wodehouse (61), The Erechetheum is dependent on its effect on meticulous workmanship, as well as the Elaboration and refinement of Ionic decorative forms, which are evidently seen at close range. Though the composite effect of its anomalies is interesting in its complexity, it is really an unsatisfactory structure that is in no sense a design of the perfection of its caliber, with the result, as stated by D.S. Robertson, that some of the information fell out of favor in the period following its makeup. If it is assessed distinctively without seeing it as part of an architectural ensemble, as Robertson does, its asymmetrical nature may be blamed on the demands of religion. The Propylaea and the Erechetheum naturally had to show their important roles, but their size could not under grade the visual dominance of the Parthenon. The architect had to find a way to plan two fine buildings, much larger than the treasuries at Delphi, but humble them to maintain the all-important pecking order on the Acropolis where the dominance status of the Parthenon is inevitable ( Gagarin, . Despite its monumental scale, its complexity and the excellent craftsmanship of its ornamentation, the intentional omissions and unprecedented features make the whole a structure without a self-asserting presence that contends with that of the main temple. However, its purpose of spatially merging with the rocky forecourt is clear. Although the structure seems fragmented, the Erechetheum when seen serially from the ceremonial route, its location gives it an elegant atmosphere and more than just a flash of interest in the view of an incoming visitor. This somewhat hides the responsibility of fragmentation and blemishing which viewers would have perceived as a variation from architectural orders (Moffett, Marian, Michael Fazio, and Wodehouse, 65) The architect of the Propylaea placed the entrance on the long axis of the Acropolis starting from Salamis to Hymettos. This axis is parallel to and approximately three degrees to that of the Parthenon. However, it is not possible for visitors to view the civic space just below the sacred space of the acropolis despite the alignment. Thus, axes between buildings cannot be used to determine the resultant design of the architectural makeup of the acropolis. Instead, the buildings are placed to come into the field of vision of visitors passing through the Propylaea. Thus Constantinos Doxiadis considers this layout as “An example of a perfect architectural synthesis based not on principles devised on the drafting board, but on the movement of a man walking on the rock. Similar to Choisy, He developed theories that set forth the Egyptian section of his history. His works on Greek entails a series of studies in Greek inscriptions in the walls of Athens and the Erechetheum In response to some attempts, such as that by Franco, to account for the asymmetrical design Of the Pinakotheke, William Dinsmoor claims that by taking different positions at some points in the implementation of the design and construction, the architect could have simply created a completely symmetrical scheme (Osbourne, 78). However, Jeffrey Hurwit does not support this notion, instead. He contends that the architect “may not have initially thought of the complex as perfectly symmetrical citing reasons such as irregularity of the site Pontus Hellstrom is one among the many scholars whose attention was attracted to the functional aspect of the Pinakotheke. He imagines the Periclean Propylaea which were never made in line with the plans the architect, as a huge banqueting complex, which if executed, would have attained a more or less total symmetry between the southern and northern parts, and would have paved the way for a more monumental elevation. However, Hellström’s suggestions can be easily ignored since Greeks who took part in public Sacrifices were bound by the fact of not being carried away. Doxiadis view of architecture and urban past of Greece approximates to the urban thought of great modern of the war period. The main idea Doxiadis had in mind is the formulation of the theory of Ekistics as a new science of human settlement (Gagarin, 134). He focused on its development, refinement, enrichment, amplification and most importantly its implementation. His initial point of the operation was the problematic present, for the intervention which the ancient Greek was responsible to provide the means. His line of argument is perfectly straight. The variation in condition for travel and construction directed Doxiadis to search for on one hand, the secret behind the manner in which the ancient Greeks had formed space to both uplift souls and gratify human beings and other hand the human scale. By using mathematics and comparative typologies similar to Choisy, he studied the markets and sanctuaries so as to discover the principles of systems behind the arrangement of buildings in space in line with the principle of human knowledge. Doxiadis believed that such a system was in existence and that it was a general theory of Urbanism, whose guidelines were of obvious significance for the current given that the ancient Greeks did not design isolated objects as present but the parts of dynamic urban surroundings. He also states that the entities of the ancient Greeks were pegged to conditions development and change. The establishment of the architectural space of the Athens Acropolis cuts across three phases, starting with the reign of Pisistratus and his successors, when the general outline is already identified , and culminating in its golden age, during which the Acropolis was undoubtedly designed as a unity by Pericles including his advisers. A mathematical analysis of the location of the building shows conformity of relationships between angles of distances and vision between buildings. The focal point from where these readings are taken is located within the main entrance: the Arcs of a circle of the western Propylaea are described from a point to other corners of the buildings. During the phase II between 480 and 447 B.C., the whole architectural space was divided into six similar angles, each of 30°, and this division, with the equilateral triangle that is derived from it, forms the basic principle of the outline. During phase III between447 and 437 B.C. the site of the various buildings was determined by a division of the space into r twelve or 6 parts, or by the angles and sides of an equilateral triangle derived from this division of space. In certain conditions, angles of 36° (180°/5), 18° (180°/10), and 12° (180°/15) seem to play a significant role. During this phase the field of vision from is enclosed on all sides except along the eastern axis (Beard, Mary, & Henderson, 76). According to Moffett, Marian, Michael Fazio, and Wodehouse (59), the basis of Doxiadis’ theories is only faintly observable from the pages of his dissertation. He was assumed to have been conversant with that facts of the geometrical synthesis of the visual makeup of the Acropolis as examined by Auguste Choisy, which were presented in the capital of Greece , but of significance in his case is the reality that he articulates the planning of space in the town around the revolving eye of a person in motion, which corresponds a revolving camera located at various points in the space and illustrating the full circles of 360° with twelve or ten present stops in each case being in space, converges on the rationale of the cinematic way of seeing and organizing the same space. It is indeed no coincidence that, at about the same period, Sergei Eisenstein was also addressing himself to the same sources- Choisy and the Acropolis - in order to construct an aesthetic theory of cinema montage, with direct references to human movement and the revolving angle of vision in architectural and urban space. In conclusion, the works of Mnesikles the architect of the Propylaea, and designer of Erechetheum and the temple of Athena Nike’ has generated arguments amongst academics and archeologist of all time. The main question has been why he opted to design the buildings with such imperfections. Many responses have been raised to account for the asymmetry of the three secondary buildings from different scholars. The main reasons that provides substantive logic is the irregularities of the site as well as the possibility that the buildings were completed contrary to the desires of the architect. This articulates well with some of the theories suggested by scholars and archeologist such as Choisy and Doxiadis. Work cited Beard, Mary, and John Henderson. Classical Art: From Greece to Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Gagarin, Michael. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome: 5. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010. Print. Jenkins, Ian. Greek Architecture and Its Sculpture. New York: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print. Moffett, Marian, Michael Fazio, and Lawrence Wodehouse. A World History of Architecture. London: King, 2003. Print. Osborne, Robin. Classical Greece: 500-323bc. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Read More