Influence of Laugier's Treatise on Ledoux - Essay Example

? Introduction Changes within architecture at different time frames are dependent on various factors, including the education of different individuals, associations with the social and cultural status and external influences. When examining different periods of time, one is able to link the architectural structures and ideals with the main beliefs that were a part of the architects and the buildings which reflect this. The work of Ledoux is one which makes a specific statement through architecture, specifically by associating with the concepts of revolution through his different buildings. The examination of his work shows specific influences from the external environment as well as beliefs which he built through influences such as Laugier. The architecture surrounding this time frame, as well as the other concepts which were associated with this creates an overall understanding of the perspective and philosophies which reflect in Ledoux’s works. Background of Ledoux Ledoux was born in France in 1736 and died in 1806. He was one of the earliest architects that focused on Neoclassical architecture and which associated specific ideologies in society with the way in which his pieces were built. Ledoux was known to have a specific relationship to the French Revolution as well as to the desire to build Utopia within the region. The beliefs of Ledoux all related to the understanding that France needed to go through a revolution, specifically to be reminded of morality and perspectives of justice within the main system. Through this revolution, there would be the ability to build Utopian ideologies with the political and social structure, while changing the way in which most associated with the country of France. The designs which Ledoux incorporated throughout his life were known to combine this with the combinations of styles from past architects, including classical and rococo styles that were incorporated into the revolutionary and radical thoughts of Ledoux (Kaufmann, 1952: p. 5). The beliefs of Ledoux were followed by other architects that influenced the ideas of revolution and the components of Ledoux’s work. One was Laugier, also who was associated with Neoclassicism and the French Enlightenment. The main philosophy of Laugier was based on bringing classical thought forms back. He found that the problem with most of the buildings which were a part of France at the time that were built without practicality or purpose. This included the column shapes and sizes as well as the extra decor and use of space that he found to be impractical. Laugier focused instead on the Greek form and shape as one which used more space with better practicality and which was associated with the understanding that the use of open space and symmetry of all buildings could create better alternatives for the buildings. These main theories were known to relate not only to classical thought and the use of practicality. The underlying philosophies of Laugier were based on using the symbolism of open space and symmetry as a way of inviting in the idea of Utopia. The symbolic meaning of the open space was related to opening a space for all and having a sense of equality that was within the environment (Braham, 1980: p 80). Architectural Changes of the 18th Century The influences which were associated with Laugier and the impact on Ledoux furthered with the changes which were in architecture and the associations which individuals had according to these alterations. During this time, France was exposed to the ideal of writing about philosophies and expectations with buildings. This was different from past architecture, specifically with a growing belief that different forms of buildings were superior in quality and make than other forms of architecture. This ideology led to redefining innovations to make the architectural buildings artifacts that were associated with the social and political changes while influencing the public reflections that were associated with this. The idea of building an architectural culture that was associated with philosophies to build specific pieces of work become a primary objective that was associated with the revolutionary and leading architects (Lavin, 1994: p. 184). The doctrines which were associated with the time period were based on the French Enlightenment and Revolution that were expected to transform the ideas of history and the components which were associated with this. The concept of many of the architectural theories was based on exposing ideas of ignorance and replacing them with enlightened viewpoints of architecture. Exploring the classic traditions, limitations of certain buildings and transforming other pieces became the main objective. The ideal was to create buildings which evolved from older pieces; however, this was expected to be done with the understanding that the tradition missed some of the main ideologies either symbolically or through the understanding of structure. Neoclassicism was an example of this, specifically as it took classical pieces and transformed them to include new theories that linked to the deeper understanding and philosophies of architecture. Most of the pieces during this time were able to reflect and expose new philosophies that evolved out of older time frames while combining the known elements for better and more practical buildings (Schmidt, 2002: p. 4). Differences Between Ledoux and Laugier The background of Ledoux and the buildings which were created led to several similarities between his influences and that of Laugier. However, it can also be noted that there were some differences in approaches. Both architects believed that the classical forms and styles were superior, specifically because of the practical implications as well as the ability for the eye to hold symmetry that is associated with the main components of the main ideologies. However, Ledoux’s architecture changed and went a step further with this. While Laugier continued to work with the structures of Neoclassical thought, Ledoux began to alter based on the growth and belief in how architecture should reflect society. His later works branched out from Laugier’s main philosophies and into components based on not only the classical formats, but also based on building a new and revolutionary society and a new Utopia. The changes in architecture then led to differences between Ledoux and Laugier, specifically because of the symbolism and the approaches toward Utopia. While Laugier remained with more symmetrical forms, Ledoux expanded to include circular symbolism and ideals based on creating Utopia and revolutionizing France (Tafuri, 2006). Early Works of Ledoux The earlier works of Ledoux were known to be the most reflective of Laugier and the approach to revisiting and changes of structure in newer pieces. The interest which both Ledoux and Laugier had during this time was based on taking the classical forms and examining the main ways in which they were interested in building structure. Both noted that the openness of the interior of the building was of primary importance. This was combined with the understanding of symmetry and columns which should be used. The influence of Laugier was based on the understanding that the columns, structures and decor should only be used with practical purpose or to make sure that the eye was drawn toward the main concepts of the building (Mallgrave, 2005: p. 17). An example of the earlier works of Ledoux can be seen with the Neoclassical influences of spaces such as the Pavillion of Mme du Barry, as seen in Figure 1. Figure 1: Pavillion of Mme Du Barry (Pavillion of Mme du Barry (1770)) When looking at the exterior points of this particular building, it can be seen that there is a direct influence on symmetry first. The eye immediately moves to the central point, specifically because of the use of the three columns and the windows that are on each side of the building. The building avoids decoration that isn’t directly related to the status of the pavilion or the main ideologies of symmetry. The interior, as seen in Figure 2, also follows this format. Figure 2: Interior of Pavillion of Mme du Barry The interior concepts of this also reflect the Neoclassical thought form, specifically because of the square and symmetrical concepts that are associated with this. The movement to the main door combines with this. However, Ledoux combines some ornate structures to heighten the symmetry and to draw the eye to the door. This made the piece one that is able to associate with the newer forms that exhibit a different angle to the classical movement. Works Reflecting Utopia The influences of Laugier with the Neoclassical movement as well as the philosophies of the time led to Ledoux’s next points of inspiration with his works. The main change which was occurring and that led Ledoux to the next pieces of architecture which was inclusive of incorporating the ideas of architecture with symbolism and the association with creating a vision within society. Ledoux became focused on urban projects in which he could combine the main associations with classicism with a new ideology that came from the French Revolution and concepts in society. The importance that Ledoux began to note was based on creating buildings that were reflective of public representations as well as needs which were incorporated into society. These main attributes were then able to create an aesthetic representation that pushed the public into new belief systems and components that were a part of new ideologies. Ledoux’s interest in the revolution as a way to create Utopia was the driving force with the next pieces of work which he created (Vidler, 1990: p. 71). There are several works which combine the ideas of Utopia with the earlier concepts which Ledoux had incorporated into his works. One was the Royal Saltworks at Arc et Senans, seen in figure 3. Figure 3: Royal Saltworks at arc et Senans (Royal saltworks at arc et senans (1774)) These images show both the exterior layout as well as the central building which was a part of the overall saltwork area. The main building still shows the same classical influences, specifically with the columns and symmetry which is incorporated, as well as the layout of the roofs which were a part of this. There are also direct associations with the decor, all which was representative of Neoclassical styles that Ledoux continued to incorporate. The difference with this building is on the overall format created with the oval buildings and the roads to the other buildings. While this continues with the same symmetry, the overall symbolism was related more to the Utopian ideology, which was representative of community and equality among those in society. The circular form, representation of the building layouts and the framework with greenery combined with the buildings all represent this concept within the main framework (Vidler, 1990: p. 74). Another piece of architecture which shows a similar concept and that Ledoux is well – known for is the Theatre of Besancon, as seen in figure 4. Figure 4: Theatre of Besancon (Theatre of Besancon, 1776) The importance of this particular image is one which isn’t in the theatre interior, but instead is based on the ideology of the exterior that Ledoux was working with. The symbolism that Ledoux worked with was an eye which was to be the exterior of the opera house. The eye was going to encompass the vision of the theater. This particular symbolism was one that was representative of the idea of Utopia, specifically because of the belief in the heightening of the arts and how they could bring insight into the main concepts of the time. The idea of creating a social utopia and building a new structure became dependent on creating arts and culture. Ledoux combined this as an ideology with the structure of the opera house, specifically which could offer each individual a place in understanding the expressions of the time (Gruson, 2008: p. 17). When looking at this, it can be seen that the symmetry then combines with the symbolism of Utopia and the relevance becomes based on combining the old concepts with the new approaches which were more revolutionary in nature. Political and Cultural Influences in Architecture The concepts of Utopia and the influences of Neoclassicism led to specific ideologies about politics and culture that Ledoux was known to associate with. The architect soon became known as a revolutionary architect, specifically because of the formations of Utopia which he was concerned with and associated with as a main part of his structure. To further this, he worked with different structures that were commercialized or which could be based on building a new Utopian ideology. The main belief was that the more in which Ledoux could express ideas of Utopia and revolution through new buildings, there would be more communication on building Utopia. These ideas led to Ledoux working with several political and cultural images, specifically so there would be a silent revolution in the symbolism of architecture which he incorporated with his buildings (Carter, 1992: p. 57). An example of the political and cultural concepts which were associated with Ledoux’s work come with buildings such as the Ferme General architecture, as seen in figure 5. Figure 5: Ferme General Architecture (Ferme generale architecture) When looking at this building, one can see that there is an integration of the concepts of revolution and Utopia as well as the classical architecture which was in the earlier works of Ledoux. The building incorporates the same symmetrical aspects, columns and use of materials that were from the classical period. However, by this time Ledoux had also incorporated the idea of revolution and Utopia into symbolism, specifically with the understanding of the circular as a main way of unifying society. Adding the circular part as the main focus of this building is significant, specifically because it was used as a part of the political formats used. This shows that the work of Ledoux was based on making the political structures keep the old, symbolized through the classical techniques, while moving into a revolution that would lead to Utopia, symbolized in the circular aspects of the building (Damisch, 2002: p. 17). Building a Future of Architecture The significance of Ledoux’s work led to several transformations both with his personal approaches to buildings as well as creating new approaches to architectural systems. The unique aspects of Ledoux included the influences of Neoclassicism and Laugier in creating symbolism and symmetry in the works. However, Ledoux pushed this one step further by creating an understanding of Utopia and the symbolic ideas of revolution. The concepts which Ledoux approached with his architecture then began to influence others and the approach which was taken to architecture. The main changes which Ledoux was able to provide were incorporated with adding philosophies and symbolism into the buildings while creating a statement about the society with the building. The environment which was created with Ledoux’s work then established a revolutionary group that focused both on taking the best of past architecture and incorporating it into the current symbolism. This was defined by finding the purest and most significant forms and combining it with creating Utopian like buildings that were reflective of the current society (Kaufmann, 1943: p. 12). The reflection that grew into the groups of architects also led into new ideologies of how to approach space and the buildings which were related to this. Ledoux’s works began to inspire others, specifically with the layout of the later buildings and the symbolic structure that was based on the oval and round forms and the symmetry which was used. The following architecture that followed this began to incorporate the Utopian ideologies and the concept of symbolism based on revolution. The groups which formed and studied the architectural works of Ledoux and others created new constructions that allowed revolutionary concepts to evolve into ones that were symbolic of the future of France and the expectations that were a part of building the future of the region. The end result was an understanding that there was an image of the future that was a part of France, specifically which many architects began to grasp to continue building a future based on the revolution and which was able to incorporate several concepts into the new framework of French architecture (Kaufmann, 1952: p. 81). Conclusion The concepts that are a part of Ledoux’s work are based on the changing concepts of the environment as well as his relationship to the external environment and personal philosophies. The beginning philosophies of Ledoux are based on the understanding of Neoclassicism, specifically which was related to Laugier and the ideas of using symmetry and practical space when working with buildings. However, this was changed when Ledoux began to look at the French Revolution and the symbolic ideas that were related to the concepts of politics and society. The change in philosophy of Ledoux was based specifically on a revolution which he believed should lead to a social Utopia. This changed the use of buildings that were a part of this by creating a combined effort with the Neoclassical concepts and the use of Utopian symbols and ideas. The approach of Ledoux then expanded into beliefs which were based on creating a New France and forming revolutionary thoughts that led to Utopia. References Braham, Allan. 1980. The Architecture of the French Enlightenment. California: University of California Press. Carter, R. 1992. “Claude Nicolas Le Doux: Architecture and Social Reform at the End of the Ancien Regime.” Eighteenth Century Studies 61 (2). Damisch, H. 2002. “Ledoux with Kant.” Perspecta 82 (1). Gruson, L. 2008. “Claude Nicolas Ledoux, Visionary Architecture and Social Utopia.” Acts of Besancon (28). Kaufmann, E. 1943. “Claude – Nicolas Ledoux, Inaugurator of a New Architectural System.” Journal of the American Society of Architectural Historians 3 (3). Kaufmann, E. 1952. Three Revolutionary Architects: Boullee, Ledoux, Lequeu. Philadelphia: Blackwell Publishing. Lavin, Sylvia. 1994. “Re-Reading the Encyclopedia: Architectural Theory and the Formation of the Public in Late – Eighteenth Century France.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 53 (2). Mallgrave, HF. 2005. Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey. New York: Routledge. Schmidt, Freek. 2002. “Expose Ignorance and Revive Bon Gout.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 61 (1). Tafuri, M. 2000. “Toward a Critique of Architectural Ideology.” The Art Bulletin 57 (1). Vidler, Anthony. 1990. Architecture and Social Reform at the End of the Ancien Regime. New York: MIT Press. Read More