THE AMBIGUITIES OF “STYLE” IN MODERNISM ALISON-WRIGHT & BEYOND. SPOORTHI SATHEESH | THEORY-2 | 04/30/2019 | PROFESSOR JEFFREY TILMAN & EDWARD MITCHELL
INTRODUCTION The definition of the term “style,” is often ambiguous, as it is professed differently, in different contexts. It is habitually associated to modes of expression. It is more often, that architectural style is associated with the classification of buildings according to their aesthetics, structural characteristics, and the era to which they belong to. However, the term has been debated upon, and its usage has caused a certain amount of discomfort amongst the architects of the Modern era. The careless use of the term has often led to conflicting opinions on what it might really mean. For instance, Laugier’s 1 Primitive Hut is considered only utilitarian and not “styled 2,” whereas Durand’s ideal “style” for modern architecture is purely utilitarian3. Modern architects have tried to eliminate the falsified notion of style and have attempted to rationalize it, in order to contextualize it. The term “style,” and its association to “taste,” almost became a zeitgeist discussion for Modern architects. However, the fabrication of the term does not seem to have been debunked entirely even in the post-modern era. For instance, Vincent Scully describes Robert Venturi’s work as “least-stylish” without clarifying what he really means by “style.”4
1
March-Antonie Laugier was a popular architectural theorist and Jesuit priest. His text on the Essay on Architecture, is regarded as a classical treatise for it contains critical propositions of the principles of building techniques. The primitive hut is a frontispiece to the second edition in this book. 2
Craven, Jackie. 2017. “Explore the Meaning of Architectural Style.” thoughtco.com. 25 November. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-style-an-architectural-conundrum-178201.
3
Durand, Jean-Nicolas-Louis. 2000. Précis of the Lectures on Architecture. Illustrated. Translated by David Britt. Getty Publications.
4
Scully, Vincent. 1977. “Introduction.” In Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, by Museum of Modern Art (New York, N.Y.), Victor Scully Robert Venturi, 11. The Museum of Modern Art.
PAGE 1
This paper will attempt to compare and analyze the modern architects’ argument about style, in a chronological order of Viollet-le-Duc, Gottfried Semper, Otto Wagner, and Frank Lloyd Wright to understand its evolution during the Modern era, and the prejudices associated with its usage. TASTE AND STYLE In the debate about what “style” really meant for modernism, it is vital to understand the concept of taste. The relationship between taste and style can be streamlined as, but not restricted to the former being a mode of perception, while the latter being a mode of expression. Alison5, a modern historian, addresses taste as the “faculty of human mind which we perceive and enjoy whatever is beautiful or sublime in natures of work or art.” He also clarifies that the perception of taste gives rise to a certain emotion of pleasure which is largely distinct from the emotions we might feel otherwise. The emotions are received from the “objects of taste.”6 Thus, he seems to be advocating the fact that the characteristics of matter, or in this case buildings, are not beautiful or sublime by themselves, but are modes of expressions, which are capable of producing emotions to be perceived. This argument is leading towards a definition of “style,” which is idiosyncratic to taste.
5
Archibald Alison (13 November 1757 – 17 May 1839) was a Scottish advocate and historian. He was a frequent contributor to Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine and was the author of the ten-volume History of Europe during the French Revolution, (published 1833-42).Alison published, besides a Life of Lord Woodhouselee, a volume of sermons, which passed through several editions, and a work entitled Essays on the Nature and Principles of Taste (1790), based on the principle of "association" 6
Alison, Archibald. 1821. "Introduction." In Essays on the nature and principles of taste, by Archibald Alison, 3-4. George Goodwin & Sons.
PAGE 2
VIOLLET-LE-DUC Viollet-le-duc7 discusses the concept of “style” in elaboration, as he tries to put forth its meaning, especially in art and architecture. By saying “there is style; then there are the styles,” he is trying to point towards the obscurities involved with the term, and imply that it is not necessarily unidirectional. He says that, even though the dictionary meaning of the term is to associate it with the classification of buildings according to eras and characteristics, it would have been more appropriate to use the word “form.” However, since the usage has been inured through time, we continue to say for instance, Greek style instead of Greek form. He asserts that “style” in his discourse, will only mean one thing. That is in art, it is a conception of the human mind, and that style is a mode by which a form is made appropriate to its objective.8 This can be associated with Alison’s definition of taste. Does this mean that style is also as individualistic as taste is? Voillet-le-Duc thus categorizes style into “absolute” and “relative.” The latter being subject to change, and the former being dominant of the artistic conception of an object. He exemplifies this argument with an instance. The style appropriate for public buildings may not be so, for private dwellings. This is relative style. Yet, a house can have certain characteristics which leave an imprint of the artist itself or his principles. This is style.
7
Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879) was a French Architect and was trained by Achille Leclère, but drew inspiration from architect Henri Labrouste. He taught at the École des Beaux-Arts and was known for his restoration works in architecture. His first major book involved multiple volumes of Dictionnaire raisonné which was later translated as “Discourses on Architecture” or “Lectures on Architecture” for the American context. 8
Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène. 1881. STYLE. Vol. 2, in Lectures on Architecture, by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, translated by Benjamin Bucknall, 231-233. Boston: James R Osgood and Co.
PAGE 3
This argument puts his definition into perspective- “style is the manifestation of an ideal, based on a principle.”9 This argument gives us a better understanding of what style might really mean when it specifically pertains to architecture. Viollet-le-Duc asserts that “style is able to enter architectural work only when it operates in accordance with these fundamental principles.”10 He clarifies in this argument that if style does not pertain to its principles, it can become a mere fantasy. For instance, a wall is provided with an architectural order when there is no need of it; or when a buttress is coupled with a column which is already erected with an intention of carrying a load.11 So is the strife for originality and style pushing architecture into more than utility? When utility was one of the main objectives of modern architecture, was “style” aiding in deviating from the objective, unconsciously? He also dates back to the concept of taste when he questions these types of construction and attributes it to what maybe taste. However, he also advocates that good taste in architecture, is that which is in accordance to reason.12 Viollet-le-Duc also elucidates the falsified notions of style in architecture. He says it is often for many people that style is nothing but an outer envelope for a building. It is a superimposition of certain ornaments or profiles borrowed from earlier models of Etruscan, Greek, etc., upon the actual construction itself.13 Here too, we can observe that he is careful to use the term “models” instead of “styles.” This relates back to the argument
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid., 236.
11
Ibid., 253.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
PAGE 4
of the ambiguous usage of the term itself, which has led to false notions and prejudices enveloping it.14 Thus it can be deciphered that “style,” according to Viollet-le-Duc, is a conception, a mode of expression or a gesture, but only when it is rational and pertains to the fundamental principles. a- Springing of a Roman groin vault on the capital of a column over a vertical point.
Voillet-le-Duc questions the purpose of the entablature B and says that it is all a matter of taste. “For my part, though my reason and consequently my taste are shocked to find between[this vault A and] the member that actually carries the load-the capital of column, C, which is already sufficiently crowned and widened to carry the load-an entire arrangement of architrave, frieze, and cornice.” He does not understand its purpose and calls it superfluous. 15
SEMPER Gottfried Semper16 takes a rational direction to decipher the meaning of style. He dates back to the early stages of artistic and building development of tribes to understand the evolution of “style.” He explains that the most primitive forms of art with a crude use of materials, eventually evolved according to “very different conditions of style.” For instance, he quotes that “the weaving of branches led easily to weaving bast into mats and
14
Ibid., 232
15
Ibid., 255.
16
Gottfried Semper (1803-1879) was a German architect and a writer. He studied in Munich and Paris and travelled around Italy and Greece, studying architecture. He was the head of the department of Zürich Polytechnikum und Yorstand der Bauschule (1855-71) and participated in the rebuilding of Vienna (171-76). His work, Der Stil in den technischen und tektonischen Künsten (1860–63; “Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts”) was published first in 1860, where he advocated for polychromy and the rational interpretation of style through techniques in architecture.
PAGE 5
covers and then to weaving with plant fiber and so forth……..The use of wickerwork for setting apart one’s property, the use of mats and carpets for floor coverings and protection against heat and cold and subdividing the spaces within a dwelling in most cases preceded by fat masonry walls particularly in areas favored by climate.”17 He also points out that social causes are the root for the rise and fall of art forms. This helps us transition into his hypothesis on the “theory of art” and the “theory of style.” He advocates that, the empiricals of the “theory of art,” involves the process of “becoming art” while deducing the principles of what is found.18 This theory considers beauty as a series of individual forms working together, to produce an end effect which is pleasing. Whereas, “the theory of style,” is a unified factor which is the end product in itself, instead of a summation of a series. These ideologies help us relate to his advocacy of style- never being arbitrary, but always a result of circumstances and relations.19 He advocates that an architect too, like any artist plays more than a role of a conductor, as the matter of taste comes into question while putting together the necessary design for required circumstances. This is what branches a particular field of art into an overwhelming amount of categories to be studied.20 Thus it can be deciphered that the evolution of the term “style” was a resultant of taste, techniques, as well as rationality of context.
17
Semper, Gottfried. 1860. "Prolegomenon." In Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts, Or, Practical Aesthetics, by Gottfried Semper, 103. 18
Ibid., 182.
19
Ibid., 183.
20
Ibid., 189.
PAGE 6
WAGNER Otto Wagner21, in his discourse on style, debates about the opinion around the term “style.” He calls it unfortunate, that an architect is almost obligated by the field to encompass a choice of “style” prior to his design process. It is questionable however, if his choice of the word “unfortunate” directs towards architects being compelled to adopt a particular “style,” or the very choice of the term “style.” However, he does acknowledge the ambiguity surrounding the word “style,” and clarifies that in this case, he is referring to the “flowering of the epoch.” He also further clarifies that it is his choice to exercise the term in this manner, and that does not mean it is limited to it. For instance, “Greeks in the formative period of their style were certainly not conscious of a contrast between their style and the Egyptian, just as little as the Romans were with respect to the Greeks.” 22This throws light on the uncertainty still surrounding the term in the 19 th and the early 20th centuries. Since he clarifies what he intends by the usage of “style,” he continues his discourse by saying “each new style gradually emerged from the earlier one when new methods of construction, new materials, new human tasks and viewpoints demanded a change or reconstitution of existing forms.” This helps understand Viollet-le-Duc’s preference of the word “form” instead of “style.” Wagner also advocates that social changes are root to the birth of new styles.23
21
Otto Wagner (1841-1918) was an Austrian architect and teacher, popularly known as the founder and leader of Modern architecture in Europe. His work Moderne Architektur was first published in 1895 and attracted a lot of controversy initially, before becoming popular. 22
Wagner, Otto. 1988. “STYLE.” In Modern Architecture, by Otto Wagner, 73-74. Getty Publications.
23
Ibid., 74.
PAGE 7
Hence, art and its “so-called style,” was an established mode of expression of beauty belonging to a particular time, according to Wagner.24 However, after the initial fanfare of “styles” had died down, works created according to them lacked enthusiasm. Hence modernism had to find another mode of expression. What does he mean by this? He also says that the task of modern architecture and art is to create forms which represent our abilities and actions.25 Does this once again refer back to Semper’s argument where “style” should be rationalized according to circumstances? In addition to this, Wagner added a new element to the “taste-style” relationship. Fashion. “The pictures of style just evoked logically allow us to perceive the close and hitherto ignored relationship between taste, fashion, and style.” He says that the modern man is able to recognize the errors of fashion, because of his taste. He explains that fashion is an influence and is a precursor of style. However, he argues that style by itself is representative of a rigid and refined taste. Hence, it can be deciphered that fashion is an influence, while taste is a conception, and style is representative of taste. 26 Wagner addresses style as that which is “representing us and our time and built on the foregoing basis, needs, and like all preceding styles, time to develop.” But he points out that the world is striving to get there quicker than ever before….and also that there is a large divide between the modern movement and the renaissance.”27 This makes us wonder
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid., 75.
26
Ibid., 76-77.
27
Ibid., 79-80.
PAGE 8
whether the concept of style was one of the major causes for the divide between Modernism and the past.
28
b – Where “style” acts as a distinguisher or a representor of an epoch. WRIGHT Frank Lloyd Wright29 emphasizes on individuality in his discourse. He claims that “there should be as many kinds (styles) of houses as there are kinds (styles) of people and as many differentiations as there are different individuals. He supports this argument by stating that a man who has individuality has a right to express in his own environment. However, what does Wright really mean by style? And he too, like his predecessors does not seem to be confident when he uses the term “style.” Here, he brings in a rational argument when he says good architecture should also go hand in hand with good
28
Ibid., 170-171.
29
Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) was an American architect who was admitted to University of Wisconsin–Madison, but left without a formal degree. He was known for his philosophy of “organic architecture,” was an influence by Louis Sullivan, who Wright worked as a chief assistant to, in Chicago. His work, In the Cause of Architecture, which was published in 1975, was a compilation of his writings.
PAGE 9
business.30 Hence, an individual client’s choice, especially in domestic architecture, becomes a consideration. Can an architect really be expressive about his “style,” when a client’s taste comes into question? Even though he initially questions the meaning of style, and is unclear about its meaning himself, he still calls for individuality, whatever style maybe.31“Style, therefore, will be the man, it is his. Let his forms alone.”32 In his discourse about what “styles” mean to architects, he argues that style cannot avoid standardization, as it is a human tendency to standardize. Hence, “styles” become a “yardstick” through buildings. However, he also claims that as “humanity develops, there will be less recourse to the “styles” and-more style for the development of humanity is a matter of greater creative power for the individual.33 It seems as though, deciphering “style” is an aid in calling for “individuality,” which is entirely personal. It is important to note that in his discourse on “how to achieve style,” he mentions that “style is a quality of form that character takes, and it becomes necessary to explain what character means.”34 This is a new entity which gets added on to the train of relationships between STYLE-TASTE-FASHION. CHARACTER. Here too he mentions that the appropriate usage of character means “individual significance,” and argues that both the entities are inseparable from each other and the difference between them is that of truth
30
Wright, Frank Lloyd. 1975. “In the Cause of Architecture.” In In the cause of architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright: essays, by Andrew Devane, Frederick Albert Gutheim Frank Lloyd Wright. Architectural Record. 31
Ibid.
32
Wright, Frank Lloyd. 1975. “In the Cause of Architecture II.” In In the cause of architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright: essays, by Andrew Devane, Frederick Albert Gutheim Frank Lloyd Wright. Architectural Record. 33
Ibid., 115
34
Ibid., 118.
PAGE 10
and beauty. While style is what we appreciate, it is a consequence of character.35 Is character according to Wright, a more natural inbuilt quality whereas style, is inherited or influenced upon? “Buildings often have character when they too are genuine and not posing as “architecture.” He clarifies this with the instance of the New York Public Library, where he claims that it has character, while its front has only “styles.”36 Even though he adds a new dimension to the word “style,” in architecture, it is once again clear that he yearns for individuality through it.
37
c- Aline Barnsdall "Hollyhock House, "Los Angeles, California. 1920.
35
Ibid., 119.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid., 117
PAGE 11
THE 20TH CENTURY TAKE ON “STYLE.” While the world progressed in architecture in the 20 th century, the “international style” became more and more popular. Was style hence becoming unidirectional? This can be seen in Colin Rowe’s discussion about the Chicago frame. Giedeon38 calls architecture an organism which constitutes its own character and continues to grow. It goes beyond its birth, beyond its social causes and beyond the style to which it belongs to.39Does this statement not take “style” back to its initial perception as a unifying typology in history and not its modern meaning/meanings? However, he seems to be advocating the fact that architecture should relate to its history, to find links and associations between different periods, which is important to us than self-enclosed entities such as styles. He illustrates this with the example of the Chateau of Versailles, where a dwelling complex was placed in direct contact with nature for the first time. However, this juxtaposition became a style in itself, a century later.40
38
Sigfried Giedion(1888-1968) was Bohemian-born Swiss historian and an architecture critic. He was a student of Heinrich Wolfflin and was also the first secretary-general at the Congrès International d'Architecture Moderne. He taught at MIT and Harvard University and his book, Space-Time and Architecture was considered an important text in modern architecture. 39
Giedion, Sigfried. 1967. "Architecture as an organism." In Space, Time and Architecture, by Sigfried Giedion, 44. Harvard University Press. 40
Ibid., 45.
PAGE 12
41
Le Corbusier42 in Vers Une Architecture, mentions that Architecture has nothing to do with “styles.” He says that “style is a unity of principle that animates all the works of an era and results from a distinctive state of mind.” The steadfast definition of “styles” are a lie, as architecture is trying to break out of monotony. This is in relation to the new era he is talking about, as he confirms that style is an entity which gets defined every day in this era, and that our eyes cannot see it. However, is this not contradictory to all the mass produced housing which is mentioned in his discussion? Is architecture really breaking
41
Image source - https://archive.org/details/lechateaudeversa01duss/page/20
42
Charles-Edouard Jeanneret(1887-1965), often known as Le Corbusier was a Swiss-French architect, painter , designer , urban planner and a writer. He was a modern architect who was a member of the Congrès International d'Architecture Moderne. His work Vers Une Architecture (1923) was one of his initial works on modernism.
PAGE 13
out of monotony of “style” in this era or is it running in the other direction with its strife for internationalism? CONCLUSION “Style” for Modernism hence, did not seem to have a steadfast definition. However, it can be concluded that it did not necessarily just mean the uniformity of typologies categorized by “style.” Although it didn’t seem to have a steadfast definition, it is debatable as to whether style meant “the flowering of an epoch,” “conception of the human mind,” “a consequence of character,” or an influence on fashion.” It can be understood that sometimes it meant one of those things, or a combination of them, depending on context. However, style remained to be an ambiguous term with preconceived notions surrounding it, even after multiple attempts by Modern architects to try and decipher it.
PAGE 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène. 1881. Lectures on Architecture. Translated by Benjamin Bucknall. Vol. 2. Boston: James R Osgood and CO. 2. Alison, Archibald. 1821. Essays on the nature and principles of taste. 2nd. George Goodwin & Sons. 3. Corbusier, Le. 2007. Toward an Architecture. Edited by Jean-Louis Cohen. Translated by John Goodman. Getty Publications. 4. Frank Lloyd Wright, Andrew Devane, Frederick Albert Gutheim. 1975. In the cause of architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright: essays. Architectural Record. 5. Giedion, Sigfried. 1967. Space, Time and Architecture. Harvard University Press. 6. Robert Venturi, Museum of Modern Art (New York, N.Y.), Victor Scully. 1977. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. The Museum of Modern Art. 7. Semper, Gottfried. 1860. Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts, Or, Practical Aesthetics. 8. Wagner, Otto. 1988. Modern Architecture. Getty Publications.
PAGE 15