DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68796#0232
212
Architectural Beauty
PART III
§ 130. Theory of Architecture as ‘ Construction
Beautified.’
The general answer to this question would probably be
conveyed in the often-employed dictum that architecture is
‘ construction beautified.’ According to this view, in any
building worthy the name of an architectural monument,
these qualities would be all connected closely together.
The purpose of the building would prescribe its general
form, while from this, and other considerations of a local
kind, would follow its materials and construction. Upon
the general form, materials and construction, would depend
the particular means employed to produce the impression
of imposing mass so essential to architectural effect; the
divisions which break up the mass and make composition
possible would result from incidents in the construction, and
the higher kind of significance just referred to would be
directly attached to features which occur naturally in the
structure. In other words, such a monument would exhibit
all its elements as dependent on the program or scheme of
operations, laid down on a basis of utility. M. Viollet-le-Duc,
in his Entretiens sur Z’Architecture, insists strongly on the
need for strict conformity to such a program, and sums up
the most important principles of architecture in the words
‘ respect absolu pour le wraE1
This motto ‘ in all things truth ’ is a sound one, but
hardly covers the whole field of legitimate architectural
practice. It is indeed somewhat too simple and straight-
forward to correspond to all the actual facts of art. There
are certain theories of the arts, of which this is one, that
are apt to mislead through their temptingly easy and logical
appearance. Of such a kind is the pre-Raffaelite theory of
1 Paris, 1863, i. p. 333, note.
Architectural Beauty
PART III
§ 130. Theory of Architecture as ‘ Construction
Beautified.’
The general answer to this question would probably be
conveyed in the often-employed dictum that architecture is
‘ construction beautified.’ According to this view, in any
building worthy the name of an architectural monument,
these qualities would be all connected closely together.
The purpose of the building would prescribe its general
form, while from this, and other considerations of a local
kind, would follow its materials and construction. Upon
the general form, materials and construction, would depend
the particular means employed to produce the impression
of imposing mass so essential to architectural effect; the
divisions which break up the mass and make composition
possible would result from incidents in the construction, and
the higher kind of significance just referred to would be
directly attached to features which occur naturally in the
structure. In other words, such a monument would exhibit
all its elements as dependent on the program or scheme of
operations, laid down on a basis of utility. M. Viollet-le-Duc,
in his Entretiens sur Z’Architecture, insists strongly on the
need for strict conformity to such a program, and sums up
the most important principles of architecture in the words
‘ respect absolu pour le wraE1
This motto ‘ in all things truth ’ is a sound one, but
hardly covers the whole field of legitimate architectural
practice. It is indeed somewhat too simple and straight-
forward to correspond to all the actual facts of art. There
are certain theories of the arts, of which this is one, that
are apt to mislead through their temptingly easy and logical
appearance. Of such a kind is the pre-Raffaelite theory of
1 Paris, 1863, i. p. 333, note.