Architecture, as an art and science

A tenet I believe Viollet-le-Duc, Ruskin, and Semper would all agree on is that the role of architecture in the modern day must be defined.  It makes sense that these men would want to clarify the intent of architecture, because by facilitating an awareness of purpose they hoped to guide others in the correct direction for future development.  It would be a new birth for architects everywhere, no longer having to rely on instinct or creativity alone.  Once something has been quantified and characterized wholly, surely it can be used more effectively.  Beyond this simple point, however, these three great architectural theorists would be unlikely to ever conclude what role it is, precisely, that architecture must play.

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