Blog1

As visionaries in their own time as well as the forerunners of modern design styles Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc and Semper established ideals and practiced not seen before in their era. All three men had elements of their theories that sometimes coincided with one another as well as diverged greatly. Some of the strongest theories that affected their work were the way they looked at the past, how they approach their individual works, and the practice of building restoration.

            The way in which today’s architects approach their projects can be traced back to the practices of at least one of the three men. Each looked at the past a different way but none the less looked at the past as precedents. Viollet-le-Duc would use his knowledge in a three step process components being his memory, reasoning and imagination. He looked to the past in a way that allowed him to take things apart, whether that was part of a gothic church then analytically reasoning why it was designing in such a way and then using his imagination to piece them together. The most important part of which being his imagination which was described as having both an “passive” and an “active” (Memory as Construction in Viollet-le-Duc’s Architectural Imagination, pg.43-44), The active imagination uses passive memories picked up over time to make sense of, and make reason out of something new or unusual. This methodology is used when le-Duc would design using new materials such as iron in his works.

            The past was approached by Ruskin was more of a preservationist when it came to using history and aged French gothic architecture as his resource. Ruskin views on past are best described by the way he views building restoration. He believed that by repairing an old structure you destroy some of the elements that make the buildings sanctity. Another way of looking at works of the past would be in the technique in which Semper would examine works of the past. In his writings Semper broke down classical architecture into four elements the hearth, the substructure or platform, the roof, and the enclosure (On Martin Fröhlich’s Gottfried Semper, pg.2-3). In this manner Semper breaks down a structure into its bare minimal parts in a way, this also shows how in a way any structure can relate back to structures built by our ancestors in the form of tents and huts. This strategy can be seen in the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, where as the most important part of his residential designs is the hearth or the fire place, the platform is expressed in the manner of which the homes are in relation to the street. The Robie house is built in a manner that places it above the street on a platform of sorts, also the roof is a very dominant expression on the home and being that it is prairie style is drawn out long due to the horizontality of the home.

The enclosure is thought of as the textiles that make up the envelope of the home structure. Once again F.L. Wright expanded upon the idea and created his textile blocks of the Ennis house. All three architects despite having their different methodologies of looking at the past can still be unified however in their reasoning. They all looked back to find out why buildings were designed in the manner in which they were and in the context, in a sense taking them apart and discovering why gothic architecture was as beautiful as it was.

            In regards to utilitarianism, construction methodology and reconstruction each architect once again had their own opinions and techniques that they used in their design. Ruskin viewed architecture as a value of its parts, where as he held the craftsmanship of the construction in higher esteem than the work of the building designer. Semper had a more scientific way about his work, he created a formula for which to engage in his design Y=F{x,y,z…}. The formula is based around a central relic that a building is created upon (Value-Y), an example of this being the alter of a church which would be considered a sacred item. The values F{x,y,z…} represent the function and the summary of each component and its relationship to the relic. Viollet-le-Duc was more interested in using his knowledge of history to set up his designs for the future, this means that he was much more interested in new technologies than his other two comrades. In his works he utilized iron which was a new building material at the time in conjunction with techniques of the past to create metaphors and to create opportunities. During le-Duc’s reconstruction projects he believed that a building should be returned the state of its origin, perhaps in a better state than it previously was brand new. This might mean the use of new materials in old structures or the use of gothic arches in buildings that there would normally be none. He was also more of a utilitarian in his structural practices recognizing the most efficient practices of the past and using them in his restoration projects.

Parts to a whole (Viollet-le-duc analytical sketch)

          

  Although each architect had their own beliefs and practices they all had one thing in common, which was the shaping for works of the future. The way that these architects conducted themselves affected modern design, as seen in some of their predecessors such as Louis Sullivan and F.L. Wright. It is difficult to understand them in the beginning, but once you start to look at their works and realize how they have applied their ideas into practice.