Thursday, January 24, 2013

Methods Developed and Employed by Viollet le-Duc, Ruskin, and Semper



As far as their architectural views and beliefs, Viollet-le-Duc, Ruskin, and Semper were all quite different from one another. Beginning with le-Duc, his architectural methods were very logically based. According to Summerson’s “Viollet le-Duc Heavenly Mansions”[i], le-Duc is a figure of importance because he is known as the last great theorists of the world. His perception of architecture is very technical in the way that he labels everything in a physical sense.  He was one of the first to introduce metal as a way structuring a building rather than just decoration. He believed that every architect should have 2 steps in their education. The first step is to “analyze masterpieces of the past” and the second is to “make own synthesis, serving conditions and using materials from his age.” This is quite evident in his writings as well as his architecture. As is shown from the image below, he is mixing the traditional style use of materials with what was considered new during his time, which was using metal as a structural element.  It is quite clear that le-Duc is very logically driven when it comes to his designs. His purpose for his designs is more functional use than for a “good feeling”.
The next architect that will be analyzed is Ruskin. In relation to le-Duc, Ruskin was quite the opposite on a variety of topics. Firstly, he was not logically driven as was le-Duc. According to Pevsner’s “Ruskin and Violett le-Duc”[ii], he created the 7 Lamps of Architecture which were sacrifice, truth, power, beauty, life, memory, and obedience. Since none of these are actually physical or can be measured, it is clear that Ruskin designed more for the emotional aspect. He was less interested in how things worked, but more for how they made you feel. For example, le-Duc was a restorer. He believed that restoring a building was the best thing that could be done to it. Ruskin however, believed that restoring a building was in fact the worst thing a building could go through, mainly due to the fact that it would tear apart the feeling, spirit, and/or character of the building. Unlike le-Duc, he did not believe in incorporating new materials into structures such as metal, but would rather keep to the traditional way of building. It is possible that his belief is this was mainly due to the fact that he was religious which meant he believed gothic architecture was the ultimate way of mixing man with God. This obviously limited his architectural designs and progress with his time. 

The last architect to be analyzed is Semper. In comparing him to the other two opposites, one might see him as being in the middle of the two. He was both logically driven as well as had an appreciation for designing for feeling. Though according to “Gottfried Semper and the Problem of Historicism”[iii], his ideas of what beauty in architecture really meant was badly understood. It says “While it was understood that the development of architectural styles was governed by the same laws that guided all of human history and society, at the same time, each period, art, and nation was singular and therefore had to develop its own style. Reusing styles of the past was therefore profoundly ahistorical and, in the historicist sense, irrational. Considered from this historicist perspective, Semper's theoretical work becomes both understandable and flawed.” This is merely saying he believed in both a traditional and a modern way of thinking about architecture, but may not have stated which he felt was more important. What is understood from his work is that they can both be seen as important and not just one or the other.     


[i] Summerson, J. (1963). Heavenly mansions and other essays on architecture. New York,, W. W. Norton.
[ii] Pevsner, N. (1969). Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the appreciation of Gothic architecture. London,, Thames & Hudson.
[iii] EckJournal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Mar., 2006), pp. 136-139Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural HistoriansStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068251 .Accessed: 14/01/2013 16:49

Image URL: [IMAGE]


No comments:

Post a Comment