Search This Blog

Loading...

Translate

28 August 2016

Where Do Ideas Come From II

Archaeology and Architecture

On Saturday 10 September I’ll be speaking at a conference about the via Appia, on the via Appia. Reconsidering Architecture and Archaeology is the end of a weeklong summer school looking at the archaeological landscape. My talk will be “The Archaeology of Invention: Excavating Ideas,” and will interpret the nature and purpose of archaeology in light of older notions of their relationship. For Piranesi, “They’ve filled my spirit these speaking ruins, in ways that drawings could never have been able to do, even very accurate ones, likes those made by the immortal Palladio, which I have still kept before of my eyes.” As the historian John Pinto says in his book Speaking Ruins: Piranesi, Architects, and Antiquity in Eighteenth Century Rome, “In the eighteenth century there was a reciprocal relationship between the act of archaeological reconstruction and the practice of modern architecture.” [p. 42] And, “In fact, Piranesi encouraged what he called ‘ragionevole congettura,’ or responsible [reasonable?] conjecture. In the introduction to the Antichità romane, Piranesi expressed the hope that his prints would stimulate ‘una nuova architettura antica.’” [Pinto, p. 8]

I’ve been posting on my blog Plein Air Italy some of the work I’ve done on site in Rome over the summer, and this most recent post deals with the place I will focus on in my talk: the tomb of Cecilia Metella as seen from the Circus of Maxentius. I’ll be interpreting the archaeological landscape as both a real place and an intellectual construct. I’ll look at the ways that landscape has inspired in the past (from plein air painting to capricci to the making of architecture), and how it might do so for us today. For that to happen we need, if not a literal connection with the forms of the past, at the very least a sympathy for their beauty and intention, for their construction and articulation, in order to build in a way that is sympathetic and equally inspiring. This obtains also for the landscape within which the ruins find themselves. Too often today those fragments in the landscape have been laid out “like a patient etherized upon a table,” to quote T. S. Elliot. They are dissected and desiccated, displayed rather than discovered. The old notion of invention as discovery is partly predicated on the power of ruins to inspire in no small way because of how they are situated in the landscape, including the landscape of our minds.

The image shown here is a capriccio I intend to show how, in an allegorical way, one might rethink the landscape of the via Appia. I’ll have more to say about it after the conference…

Where Do Ideas Come From II

Archaeology and Architecture

On Saturday 10 September I’ll be speaking at a conference about the via Appia, on the via Appia. Reconsidering Architecture and Archaeology is the end of a weeklong summer school looking at the archaeological landscape. My talk will be “The Archaeology of Invention: Excavating Ideas,” and will interpret the nature and purpose of archaeology in light of older notions of their relationship. For Piranesi, “They’ve filled my spirit these speaking ruins, in ways that drawings could never have been able to do, even very accurate ones, likes those made by the immortal Palladio, which I have still kept before of my eyes.” As the historian John Pinto says in his book Speaking Ruins: Piranesi, Architects, and Antiquity in Eighteenth Century Rome, “In the eighteenth century there was a reciprocal relationship between the act of archaeological reconstruction and the practice of modern architecture.” [p. 42] And, “In fact, Piranesi encouraged what he called ‘ragionevole congettura,’ or responsible [reasonable?] conjecture. In the introduction to the Antichità romane, Piranesi expressed the hope that his prints would stimulate ‘una nuova architettura antica.’” [Pinto, p. 8]

I’ve been posting on my blog Plein Air Italy some of the work I’ve done on site in Rome over the summer, and this most recent post deals with the place I will focus on in my talk: the tomb of Cecilia Metella as seen from the Circus of Maxentius. I’ll be interpreting the archaeological landscape as both a real place and an intellectual construct. I’ll look at the ways that landscape has inspired in the past (from plein air painting to capricci to the making of architecture), and how it might do so for us today. For that to happen we need, if not a literal connection with the forms of the past, at the very least a sympathy for their beauty and intention, for their construction and articulation, in order to build in a way that is sympathetic and equally inspiring. This obtains also for the landscape within which the ruins find themselves. Too often today those fragments in the landscape have been laid out “like a patient etherized upon a table,” to quote T. S. Elliot. They are dissected and desiccated, displayed rather than discovered. The old notion of invention as discovery is partly predicated on the power of ruins to inspire in no small way because of how they are situated in the landscape, including the landscape of our minds.

The image shown here is a capriccio I did to show, in an allegorical way, how one might rethink the landscape of the via Appia. I’ll have more to say about it after the conference…

16 July 2016

Where Do Ideas Come From?

Or, Is There Such a Thing as Classical Creativity?

So-called Arch of Drusus, Rome
My interest in emulation was as an antidote to the modern compulsion for imitation among classicists, a defeatist attitude motivated by longing for lost glories and the lack of ability to reach them again without directly replicating them. Emulation, I’ve argued, was actually the dominant mode of classical artists and architects vis-à-vis their forebears; imitation was for novices and amateurs. At least until the late eighteenth century.

But emulation, I argued in my book, was mostly an aspect of formal rivalry; Renaissance artists and architects strove, beyond that, to be intellectually inventive—novel, “creative,” capable of bizzarrie and extending the tradition. Neither conservative nor nostalgic, the Renaissance was an optimistic time that privileged invention, that fecund word that they would have used instead of our word creativity, because they would have said only God can be creative (making something out of nothing). What we humans can do is invent, discover, find ideas. Not rehash old ideas, but find new ways of thinking by digging into the past, revivifying the past by reinterpreting it.

In architecture the evolution of forms and types was primarily motivated by meaning. The Romans combined their older triumphal vaulted passage (fornix) with triumphal columns to create a new type, the arcus, during the time of Augustus. The accumulation of typologically legible elements—vault/arch and column—yielded a more complex meaning and created a new type. One hears occasionally in classicist circles of the “fornix motif,” but the thing being described—a trabeated surround to an arch—was neither proper to a fornix nor was it a motif. The triumphal arch (arcus) more commonly deployed columns en ressaut, emphasizing their autonomy as freestanding columns, not part of a bay-spanning system. Here’s a short video I’ve created illustrating the evolution of the type:



The Theater of Marcellus Seen from the Campidoglio
What is called a “fornix motif” should really be known as a “theater system,” since it was in fact proper to the façades of Roman theaters (and amphitheaters), and it formed not so much a motif (a detachable, discrete ornamental form) as a repetitive system of articulation. This too was a Roman invention. And both the nature of the triumphal arch and the theater façade were clearly understood by Renaissance architects who developed a properly linguistic use of classical forms—systematic, articulate, meaningful—to invent a new kind of architecture, capable of evolution while remaining legible and expressive.

Porta Savonarola, Padova, by G. M. Falconetto



That is what we lost with neo-classicism and the Beaux Arts, and what we need to recover if we really want a renaissance today. It takes careful looking at the past, careful reading of the best historians, and the recovery of skills that the artists of the Renaissance had. An act of will, in other words.