The Relationship between Ornament and Structure in Architecture - Term Paper Example

Ornament Name Course Lecturer Date Introduction One of the important themes of architecture as seen in the western tradition is the relationship between ornament and structure. This relationship has been portrayed across the history of interior architecture and western architecture. Considering the fact that history consists of inexhaustible information, this paper will limit its discussion to the Renaissance and Rococo periods and how the relationship between the ornament and structure, as portrayed in both periods, is problematic. The interiors and buildings of the Renaissance and Rococo periods will be used to explain the argument.1 Within the figure and form of a building, there lies some natural perfection and excellence that is immediately recognisable. Every building consists mainly of individual and fixed parts. If these parts are transferred, reduced, enlarged or removed and placed somewhere inappropriate, the body’s very composition will be destroyed, giving the body its fitting outlook. Beauty in a building is therefore a form of consonance and sympathy of parts in accordance with position, outline and definite number. The bodies studied in nature do not consist of equal measures; some are fat, some are slender and others are medium. Thus, as there is a significant difference in intention and purpose between two buildings, each building should receive different treatment.2 Principles of ornamenting The principles of position outline and definite numbers can now be examined. As far as numbers were concerned, the designers used either even or odd, used both, but odd in some places and even in others. For instance, they took examples from nature and made the building’s ‘bones’—which in this case means the angles, columns and so on—even in number. This is because one cannot find a single animal in nature that stands or moves upon an odd number of feet. As far as the buildings’ openings were concerned, the architectural designers never made them to be even-numbered. They evidently learned this from nature. Consequently, nature has given animals symmetrical nostrils, eyes and ears, but centrally, it has provided a single opening—the mouth.3 Architecture incorporates numbers that are closely linked to conceptions and philosophical reasoning. For instance, the number five is seen as divine, and architects dedicate it to the arts’ gods, particularly Mercury. The number seven is seen as God’s delight due to the seven planets in the heavens that regulate God’s favourite creature, man, in terms of maturity, adolescence, formation and conception. Philosophers such as Aristotle suggested that ancestors would not name a newborn child until seven days had passed and it became clear whether the child would survive. Nine was another popular odd number, as nature had placed nine orbs in the sky.4 In relation to the outline, significant efforts have been made to produce correspondence between the lines that define dimensions such as height, breadth and length. These dimensions are defined in such a way that the resultant outline complies or is consistent with the objects we view in nature. The outline is derived from objects in nature. The height, breadth and width are measured using numbers that please our mind and eyes, or whose sound is pleasing to our ears.5 The ancient monuments reveal to us the transformation that buildings have continued to enjoy. In Asia, the monuments basked in the glory of their youth. In Greece, the ancient monuments flowered, and they reached maturity in Italy. As this introduction has shown, one of the important themes of architecture as seen in the western tradition is the relationship between ornament and structure. This relationship has also been portrayed across western architecture. This paper will limit its discussion to the Renaissance and Rococo periods. Relative to the above discussion, this paper will explain how the relationship between ornament and structure, as portrayed in both periods, is problematic. Ornament and structure in Renaissance For the Renaissance period, this paper focuses on Alberti’s architectural work. Leon Battista Alberti is one of the architectural geniuses of the fifteenth century. He lived between 1404 and 1472. As he had no training in architecture, he had to study what remained of the antique Roman architecture. His main concern was with the principles of design and what the Romans used as models for the decorative way of handling orders. His view on architecture was that it is not rooted on craft; instead, it is more of a social art and intellectual discipline. He further claimed that architecture relies on two important aspects: mathematics and paintings.6 The problem that ornament and structure faced in this case was Alberti’s argument that architectural knowledge did not need to be acquired any longer from medieval Europe’s lodges where Gothic genius-masons had honed their skills. He said that architectural knowledge could be acquired by studying the works of dilettanti, patrons and scholars who were men of taste and education. Alberti’s work was mainly to design buildings. He left the construction to others because he had little technical knowledge. In Renaissance period, the three principles of ornamenting were the position, outline and definite number. Therefore, in the Renaissance period, three parts were used by Alberti as the basis for good architecture: Venustas, Firmitas and Utilitas. These parts represent the beauty or design, structure and function.7 Additionally, Alberti claimed that beauty in a particular building brings together three qualities: Finitio, Numeros and Collocatio. Finitio refers to proportion, which is derived from the relation of different parts of the human body to the entire body. Numeros refers to the number and Collocatio refers to arrangement, disposition or location. The unity of these parts produces a well-adjusted whole known as Concinnitas. For beauty to have its full effect, the ornament must be added. In this case, the important ornament is the column, which plays a decorative role rather than a functional role.8 Alberti viewed architecture as a civic art that expresses the ordered hierarchy of religious and social ideals with dignity and clarity. For this reason, he divided buildings into secular and sacred. One of the buildings designed by Alberti was Andrea, in which the columns were the ornaments. Andrea was a new kind of church that replaced the conventional aisles of basilican and Gothic churches. It had a series of side-chapels that gave the pilgrims who entered the church an undisturbed sight of the domed crossing. Two vases that were said to contain the blood of Christ were displayed annually on Ascension Day. In Alberti’s building, there was a large coffered barrel-vault with a width of nearly 18 m, which was the largest built in Roman times. It had a great arched opening flanked by small openings.9 This picture shows a structure with domed crossing. It is an example of structures designed during the Renaissance period Ornament and structure in Rococo The Rococo style was used between 1650 and 1790. The architects during this period used Baroque ideas, but with a lighter and more graceful touch. Rocaille is a term used in France to refer to shells, rocks and shell-shaped ornaments applied to fountains, and Rococo, which was derived from this term, was a highly ornamental style of interior design, furniture and art in the 1700s. It combined the details of Italy’s Barocco, commonly known as Baroque, and France’s delicacy of rocaille. Rococo architecture, which is commonly found in Russia, Eastern Europe, Austria and Germany, tends to be more graceful and softer. Curving shapes are dominant in Rococo buildings and pale colours are commonly used.10 Rococo was originally used as a derogatory term. The term arrived from France in the 1790s and was used to describe neo-classical painters’ art. However, the term also echoes the syllabic baby talk ‘ro-co-co’, which qualifies the term to fit with the superior attitude adopted by neo-classical artists towards the art. In France, art historians preferred the phrase ‘Louis XV’. The Rococo style was invented in France mainly to be used for decorating private houses. It matured in the period 1725–1740.11 Delicacy and lightness were the main characteristics of the Rococo style. Its decorative forms comprised small, broken curves, which were executed either in stucco or wood. The curves floated on the surface of ceilings and walls, with many of the curves unbroken. The Rococo designers did away with architectural items such as entablatures, pilasters and columns. Instead, they fused their decoration into gauze-like patterns over the ceilings and walls. When the decoration is mature, it is asymmetrical. It also uses the shell as its favourite motif. This picture shows an example of a beautiful Rococo design In conclusion places where architecture cannot be separated from decoration, the Rococo style realises its full effect in buildings. Therefore, this discussion shows that the problem between structure and ornament is that Rococo is more of a decoration than structure. It is only limited to situations in which architecture cannot be separated from the decoration.12 Bibliography: Adam, R. 1990. Classical architecture: A complete handbook. London: Viking. Andrews, B. 1984. Gothic in South Australian churches. Adelaide: Flinders University of South Australia. Collins, P. 1965. Changing ideals in modern architecture, 1750–1950. London: Faber and Faber. Hersey, GL. 1988. The lost meaning of classical architecture: Speculations on ornament from vitruvius to venturi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kostof, S.1985. A history of architecture: Settings and rituals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. 1985. Late Baroque and Rococo architecture. New York, NY: Electa/Rizzoli. Panofsky, E. 1972. Renaissance and renascences in western art. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Pevsner, N. 1976. A history of building types. London: Thames and Hudson. Rosenau, H. 1970. Social purpose in architecture: Paris and London compared, 1760—1800. London: Studio Vista. Summerson, J. 1970. Georgian London: An architectural study. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. Thornton, P. 1991. The Italian Renaissance interior 1400—1600. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams. Wilkower, R. 1949. Architectural principles in the age of humanism. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company. Wilkower, R. 1966. Gian Lorenzo Bernini: The sculptor of the Roman Baroque. 2nd ed. London: Phaidon Press, 1966 Wolfflin, H. 1966. Renaissance and Baroque. Ithaca, New York, NY: Cornell University Press. Read More