Howdy folks! Today in architectural theory we’re going to get to one of the first examples of serious beefbetween two guys who wore the 17th Century equivalents of coke-bottle glasses and black turtlenecks. (I’m gonna guess it was powdered wigs.)
The beef, later canonized in theory as the “Ancients vs the Moderns” occurred between two dead French dudes: Nicolas-Francois Blondel and Claude Perrault.
Way less steamy than Team Edward vs Team Jacob, but we’ll work with it.
Player 1: Blondel
Francois Blondel (b. c.1618, d.1686) was a military leader, engineer, mathematician, diplomat and architect. He was appointed by Louis XIV to become the first director of the newly formed Royal Academy of Architecture in Paris. His main task as director was to design the school’s curriculum and pen a textbook.
The incredibly French frontispiece of the of said textbook (Blondel’s Cours d’Architecture, c.1674) Public Domain.
Architectural thought at the time revolved around the theory of Vitruvius as far as the role of the architect and further established the three Vitruvian qualities (firmness, commodity, and delight) as the main criteria for great architecture. However, theorists, especially Blondel, turned to Renaissance concepts of beauty as being something universal and absolute, and the idea (after Alberti) of “harmonic proportions.”
An academic at heart and a traditionalist to a fault, Blondel believed in the absolute perfection of the work of the Ancients, as exemplified by the temples of the Greeks and Romans. He was, you know, that guy.
Player 2: Perrault
Claude Perrault (b.1613, d.1688), was a guy who, for most of his life, was not the type to start architecture slap fights. He spent the majority of his career working as a surgeon and anatomist - not as an architect.
Perrault got roped into architecture through Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s Minister of Finance and Superintendent of Building, whose secretary (Charles Perrault, famous for being the father of the fairy tale) was Claude Perrault’s younger, more handsome brother.
In 1666, Colbert, acting on behalf of the king, asked Perrault to do a new French translation of Vitruvius for use as one of the textbooks for the newly formed Royal Academy of Architecture. In 1667, Perrault was appointed (by Colbert) to a three-person committee responsible for preparing a different design for the East Wing of the Louvre, which had been suspended after the design prepared by the Italian architect Bernini got dumped for not being French enough.
When a building’s Wikipedia page looks something like this, you know some serious sh*t went down.
Perrault’s concept for the East Wing was totally different than the architectural canon of the time:
Drawing from Blondel’s (a different one) Architecture françoise, 1756. Public Domain.
Looks like just another old building, right? *leans into mic* Wrong.
Perrault’s design choices were unprecedented in French classical architecture, and even though his design (he took credit for the work of his colleagues almost immediately) was one of sophistication and visual lightness, the use of unusually thin visual proportions was basically taboo af.
And where did Perrault think it was a great idea to explain his design choices? In the gosh dang footnotes of his 1673 translation of Vitruvius, which was to be used by the kiddos at Blondel’s school.
Perrault’s Footnotes
This smug asshole opened up his defense with what seems to be two sentences formulated specifically to piss off Blondel the most:
Gothic architecture, which left behind little primary source documents (dark ages and all that), was totally refuted by the French academy as being ugly, overindulgent and grotesque.
(Photo taken by me!)
Perrault went on to justify his decision by appealing to Vitruvius’ description of the temple of Dionysus by the Greek architect Hermogenes, who devised for it a flexible system of proportions using the diameter of a column as a unit of measurement. Basically, argued Perrault, proportions were relative, and not absolute.
Perrault added (throwing some serious shade) that because the Ancients didn’t harp on Hermogenes for doing something different from the then-canon of architecture, Perrault himself shouldn’t be harped on for the same reason. (Also because his cool new engineer stuff expanded the structural capabilities of architecture but whatevs.)
Blondel’s Response
Blondel’s response to Perrault’s argument in his 1683 Cours d’Architecture textbook (that’s right: all this fighting was done in footnotes and textbooks instead of face to face like normal people) was:
Which was basically 17th century academic speak for:
(yes this is still in my drafts)
Perrault’s Response to Blondel’s Response
Perrault in the &#&@ing footnotes of the second edition (1684) of his translation of Vitruvius, offered these counterarguments to Blondel’s criticism:
It is FAKE NEWS that we’re not “allowed” to deviate from what the Ancients did and that by doing so we’d only invite “””””disaster”””” also btw the Ancients were new in their time. (checkmate atheists traditionalists)
It’s dumber to close the door on good invention than it is to open it “to those who are so ridiculous that they will destroy themselves.”
If the Ancients were perfect and architecture is perfect, are all those other arts and sciences that have improved upon the past totally wrong???
Just bc the goths did some tacky crap, they still created spaces that were open and full of light and we should’t hate them for it.
Bummer: Perrault got the last laugh because Blondel died. (RIP)
However, Perrault wasn’t done messing with architectural norms. In 1683, he published a super important treatise by the extremely catchy name of “Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of
Columns after the Method of the
Ancients”
Perrault’s Last Stand
Perrault, in his treatise upended two major beliefs in architecture: the myth of so-called harmonic ratios, and the idea of absolute proportions.
Perrault, who made a career as a surgeon and studied anatomy, refuted immediately the idea that visual ratios worked the same way as musical harmony (an idea that goes back to Plato) by citing the obvious fact that the eye and the ear don’t work in the same damn way.
Long before the beginning of neuroscience, (and tbh he was kind of pulling this out of his ass) Perrault claimed that we don’t process visual stimuli in the same way we process auditory stimuli, in that visual stimuli plays a much larger role in how we perceive and interpret the world, adding that responses to visual dissonance are much less visceral than responses to aural dissonance.
More importantly, Perrault claimed that there were two types of beauty:positive and arbitrary.
Positive beauty consisted of things pretty much everyone could agree on: e.g. symmetry; the “magnificence” of a building, and the quality of its construction and materials.
Arbitrary beauty introduced the idea that beauty is relative to one’s cultural customs, as well as to the fashion of the times, and the weird inner-workings of people’s taste. Perrault claimed that the idea of “correct” architectural proportions is largely influenced by one’s customs, and therefore falls within the category of arbitrary beauty.
Well, that does it for this week’s bit o’ theory. Stay tuned for next week’s installment, as well as Wednesday’s continued trek through the 50 States of McMansion Hell, with a guaranteed awful house from Illinois.
I want to share with y’all this hysterical McMansion interpretation of the Vitruvian triangle from last week’s post created and sent to me by my new bff David Larsen:
Hello Friends! Like most people my age, when someone says Idaho, after the immediate connotation with potatoes (sorry Idahoans? Idahoes?), my mind instantly jumps to:
Well, our lovely house is honestly not that far off - simply imagine what it would look like if Napoleon’s family came into a tacky amount of money and did a remodel in 1993.
Our lovely house, built in 1991, boasts a whopping 6 bedrooms and 7.5 baths, and can be all yours for just under $3 million dollars.
I guess that view is why the damn house is so expensive. Also I S W E A R I saw that fabric swatch as a Martha Stewart exclusive in Michael’s scrapbook clearance or something.
Sunroom 2 of 2
“Ah yes, let me relax in this luxurious, supportive wicker chair for more than 30 minutes,” said very few people.”**
**I can’t say “said no one ever” because I don’t want angry emails about how much people love wicker furniture when I will never agree because it leaves grotesque weave imprints on my sensitive skin.
Upstairs Landing
Real talk: if you are a builder or worked in the industry and you know how egregious weirdness like this happens, I would love to hear from you.
“HONEY ARE YOU IN THE TUB AGAIN????” “I’M WASHING OFF THE FILTH THAT IS OUR HOLLOW LIFE TOGETHER”
Bedroom 2
Wait, are you telling me you haven’t read Freud’s Psychology of Bedspreads?
Bathroom 2
I’m glad other people brush their teeth in the shower too.
Bedroom 3
Ah, I love when classical music Kate and architecture Kate get to become one again outside the context of concert halls.
And finally, our favorite part:
Rear Exterior
Okay, but seriously Duncan Idaho is my least favorite character in all of Dune. I’ve read all 6 books, and I hate him everysingletime. In a universe of rich and extremely complex characters, Duncan Idaho is dumber and more wooden than a sack of hyper-masculine potatoes. (Pun was intentional) Fight me.
(If you’re particularly curious, my favorite character is Leto II. Liet Kynes is my favorite in the first book.)
Well, that does it for this week’s -
OH WAIT!!!1 :O :O :O
Also, if you were wondering - the listing did not include pictures of a kitchen! However, judging by the rest of the house, I can only assume the kitchen looks something like this:
Well, that does it for Idaho! Join me on Sunday for a continued totally serious look at Architectural Theory, and next Wednesday for one of my favorite states: Illinois! (Warning: Cheryl might be making an appearance.)
Hello Friends! Educational!McMansion Hell is back after a long(ish) haitus - and I hope you like text, because there’s gonna be some text.This Sunday’s topic is architectural theory, aka many an architecture student’s least favorite class(es) in architecture school.
A lot of people see the words “architectural theory” and expect something like this:
(for those curious, this is from Greg Lynn’s 1993 essay “Architecture Curvilinearity: the Folded, the Pliant, and the Supple”)
Fortunately for most of us (sorry PhD students), the vast majority of architectural theory isn’t this complex and esoteric! Hence:
What even is Architectural Theory?
Architectural theory is simply talking about architecture. It encompasses everything from philosophy and aesthetics to history, sociology, and building construction techniques.
Common questions in architectural theory, debated even today include:
What is the role of the architect?
What makes a building beautiful or important?
What makes good or innovative architecture?
What is the role of architecture as an art or as a science? In society?
What is the role of a building within the city or landscape?
Can we create a better world through architecture?
How do (or should) architects reinterpret the past?
How does today’s architecture fit into architectural history?
How does today’s society influence its architecture?
How do changes in technology influence architecture?
Seen above: books that have, at one point, pissed off some dudes in black turtlenecks and glasses. (Photo Sources: Monoskop, Fair Use)
Early Architectural Theory: Antiquity through the Renaissance
Though there were likely many before him whose work was lost in the throes of antiquity, the Roman architect, writer, and engineer Vitruvius (active during the 1st century BCE) is credited with being the grandfather of architectural theory.
Vitruvius’ work De architectura (commonly known as The Ten Books of Architecture) is the oldest existing treatise on architecture, and the only primary source from classical architecture to have survived into modernity.
1931 edition of Vitruvius’ Ten Books of Architecture, screenshot from Archive.org. Public Domain.
Vitruvius’ treatise handled everything from how the Romans built their cities and decorated their temples to the philosophy of architecture and the training of young architects. Vitruvius’ most famous contribution from De architectura was his answer to the question: what makes good architecture?
Vitruvius believed that good architecture satisfies three fundamental laws: firmitas, utlitas, and venustas (commonly translated as firmness, commodity, and delight.)
The Vitruvian Triangle (diagram by me, hereby released into the Public Domain)
Even now, Vitruvius’ requirements for “good” architecture remain relevant, and form a successful basis for theoretical thought. For those who feel like they don’t know how to talk about architecture, asking if something is well-constructed, satisfies its intended function, or could be considered beautiful is a good place to start.
The trickiest of the three is, of course, beauty, as ideas of beauty differs from person to person. For example, I hate McMansions, but love Brutalist architecture, which is loathed by many.
The discussion of whether or not something can be considered beautiful, and why is often referred to as aesthetics.
Renaissance Thought
During the Renaissance, the architect and theorist Leon Battista Alberti expanded greatly on Vitruvius’ ideas of beauty, which he found problematic. (Namely Vitruvius’ idea that the architect can change proportions based on his own judgement rather than the Platonic laws of the universe - which Alberti believed had the potential to invoke aesthetic chaos.) His statements on aesthetics would lay the foundation for three centuries of architectural thought.
Alberti believed (following in the footsteps of Plato) that there is a so-called higher reality to the physical world, which could be expressed through architecture via the universal laws of mathematics and “harmonic” proportions, such as the “golden ratio”.
Leon Battista Alberti, perspective drawing from Della Pittura, 1435-1439. Public Domain
Alberti used the work of Cicero who said that effective connection and embellishment of words gave rise to a certain symmetry - called concinnity - which, when said words were changed, disappears, (though the overall structure or idea remains the same, like a building without ornament). Alberti summed these abstract ideas into three numerical qualities applying to architecture: correct number, outline and position. Alberti’s use of mathematics in art resonated throughout the Renaissance, and his treatment of perspective and perspective drawing had a huge influence on later artists, namely Leonardo da Vinci.
The Platonic idea of universal beauty as expressed by symmetry and mathematical proportion and the Vitruvian triad were further synthesized by Andrea Palladio (1508-1580) - perhaps the most important architect and theorist in history.
Palladio: Villa Barbaro (c.1560)
Palladio’s emphasis on balance and symmetry, and his devotion to the historical forms of Greek and Roman antiquity remain influential in classical architecture to this very day. Palladio’s Four Books of Architecture was not only a classic Renaissance architectural treatise, but also an invaluable source on classical stylings and ornamentation through endless drawings of details, plans, sections, and elevations. In addition, Palladio’s treatise coincided with the dawn of the printing press, enabling it to be transmitted widely, spreading its influence.
Palladio: Villa Rotunda, c.1592. Public Domain.
The Palladian Villa is a classic case study in architectural problem solving, balancing economic materials, saving the drama for the exterior, and emphasizing harmony, symmetry and balance - making each villa easy to navigate both externally and internally. In addition, Palladio’s use of the grid as a compositional tool was highly influential to architects ranging from Thomas Jefferson to the deconstructivist architect Peter Eisenman.
Of course, we can’t forget one of the most important legacies of Palladio: the Palladian window, which would later be completely abused by McMansions.
Well, folks - that does it for architectural theory Part 1 of Many. Stay tuned for Wednesday’s Idaho McMansion and next Sunday’s installment of “dead dudes who wrote about buildings.”
Hello Friends! I hope you haven’t suffered too much from my absence! For all you Georgians out there, don’t worry! I’ll come back around to you - however, the schedule is cruel and I must forge on.
Houses on islands are always interesting, because unless they’re multimillion-dollar luxury palaces, they’re usually pretty small due to the increased cost of building on an island. After all, islands are kind of cut off from everything else by oceans and stuff, which means they have to get most of their building and other materials from the mainland - making construction much more costly. Also, a lot of islands are geologically volatile, which means added costs for earthquake proofing or increased flood resistance.
That being said, no where is safe from the big and ugly.
This week’s house, built in 2009, features 5 bedrooms and 3.5 baths (around 3,000 square feet) and can be all yours for just under $950k!
Shall we?
Entryway/Sitting Room
I don’t understand WHY people buy furniture sets, when the act of furniture shopping is SO MUCH FUN and you can save TONS OF MONEY not buying tacky matching stuff while also satisfying that HGTV dream of finding ~the perfect piece~.
(Okay, maybe people buy them because they just want the whole thing to be over with. That’s understandable. But ya’ll can at least buy them from Ikea.)
Suspiciously Average Kitchen
“What can one tell about one’s hopes and dreams by examining their cabinet trinkets? How can we use these seemingly arbitrary items to gain access to the greater mystery that is the human mind?” - Freud, probably
Dowdy Dining Room
That’s 4, excitedly, not 4 (factorial).
Can we have a sad laugh at millennials deciding what furniture to leave behind to their kids? Like, “Yeah, Emma you can have my ever-growing collection of LACK tables, and Noah you can take the West Elm sofa - what’s left of it.” “What about your knock-off Eames lounger, mom?” “Let me be buried with my shame.”
SERIOUS MALE OFFICE
No disrespect, but military stuff is really boring to me unless it involves buildings. When McCarthyism comes back, I’ll be one of the first to go.
Bedroom 1
The bed being against the window with the beautiful view I’ll take as a metaphor for America’s fractured relationship with nature and the environment as a whole. Or laziness. That works.
Bedroom II
Bed-size calculator: enough size for me + my laptop as I fall asleep alone until the end of time. :)
Bedroom 3 [reject bedroom]
Ok, rattan, wicker, etc are def beachy and therefore included in the iconography. Also, I am skeptical of that drapery on the right window’s ability to cover said window in its entirety.
Second Living Room
Kate Wagner: An Art Historian
(Also I guarantee that jukebox sits unused because they didn’t think to put an AUX jack on it back in the day.)
Rec Room
Today in embarrassing collections your friend’s parents have: roosters.
[Today in embarrassing collections I have: random stuff decorated to look like Piet Mondriaan paintings.]
You may be wondering: where are all the bathrooms? Well…
Bathrooms (that’s right: they all look exactly the same)
Yeah, “The Walmart Tiki Dimension” would be a great name for a psychedelic noise/surf-rock fusion band.
And now, our favorite part:
The Rear Exterior
Attempts were made, which is better than most, admittedly.
Well, that does it for Hawaii! Stay tuned for some informative cool architecture stuff on Sunday, and IDAHO next Wednesday!
