Viollet-le-Duc believed in the principle of rationality
above all else, as described in his treatise Dictionnaire. In his mind,
if a piece of architecture could be described positively, it must have inherent
qualities which can be observed. If
these qualities can be observed, they can therefore be rationalized, dissected,
analyzed, and then used in the same manner in the future to consistently
achieve the same, beneficial results. He
wanted to logically interpret the idea of personal preference. He studied in great detail the works of
Gothic architecture, and believed he could use elements of these structures to
unequivocally prove why they were superior.
Then, using his basis for rationality, these elements could be reduced
through analysis to their base parts, and an analogy could be drawn to them using
modern technologies. Using new materials
such as iron, Viollet-le-Duc wanted to transform architecture by finding the
right parallels in the successes throughout the history of architecture.
Similarly, Semper attempted to reduce the broad spectrum of
architecture to a mathematical formula.
This formula, U = C ( x , y , z , t , v , w … ), contained a vast array
of variables in which they would be quantified, simplified, and reduced to the
result, U, the “work of art.” Each
variable accounted for various factors affecting a piece of architecture, such
as purpose, materiality, climate, topography, etc. Where Semper differed from Viollet-le-Duc in
his attempt to scientifically define architecture is in his approach. While Viollet-le-Duc would analyze existing
architecture in order to determine why it was successful and try to draw an analogy
between it and the future of architecture, Semper wanted to try and nail down
every possible internal or external influence to explain its success. His equation would then attempt to follow “successful”
patterns when creating new works. A
major failure in this line of thought is the inability to truly determine every
variable. Without the ability to account
for each variable, the pseudo-mathematical function cannot stand.
Ruskin’s theories were a larger departure from the attempt
of Viollet-le-Duc and Semper to scientifically analyze architecture. He referred to the Seven Lamps as guidelines, and these lamps were a personal metric
for determining the virtue of a structure.
Ruskin was more concerned with the nobility, life, nature, and glory of
buildings. Additionally, he felt that
most of these qualities were ultimately provided by the craftsmen who
constructed such wonders, not the architect.
Craftsmen, such as masons, would infuse their vigor into a structure,
giving it life, as opposed to a “mere building,” designed by an architect. For example, Ruskin suggested looking for
whether a building appeared to have been built by strong men.
Ultimately, I believe the fact that these men are considered
such great theorists, and yet are so wildly divergent in their terms of
thinking is quite telling. It implies
that architecture is more than a definition, but is instead a continuously
evolving concept. It is an extension of
man’s ingenuity, which cannot be perfectly quantified.
Citation
Hvattum, M.(2004). Nineteenth-Century Architecture and Theory. Cambridge, England & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pevsner, N.(N.D.). Ruskin and Viollet-Le-Duc. London: Thames and Hudson
