The Classical in Art and Architecture - Grappling with beauty, nature and the ‘undefinable'.

When we look at classical art and architecture, we can sometimes be confused. We see what appears to be a perfection – a consummate marriage of science and art, expressed in a language of control that mystifies us. We know that these are things are beautiful, but we’re not sure why and how.

And so the process of analysis begins…

Architects have forever wondered of the origins of classical form. And this is usually presented as a story of transformation, of development from ‘primitive hut’ to Doric Temple. This gives us a means of interpreting what appear to be highly or purely decorative forms as previously having had ‘use’ - and of seeing the classical language of architecture as a stylisation of functional elements (the exposed end of roof beams become triglyphs for example).

Illustration on the origins of the Doric Order from Bannister Fletcher’s ‘A history of Architecture’ the seminal work of Architectural History still used today.

Modern architects sometimes use the ‘deconstruction’ of the origins of classical language in modern buildings – this view of the rear of the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden shows the ‘doric’ language of the collanade ‘disintegrating into the language of the primitive hut for the ‘loggia’ at high level.

Once we have understood, or ‘interpreted’, the nature of the shapes that make up classical architecture, we can measure them - to learn of the specific relationships between the individual parts and the whole. And many have, from Vitruvius, through Leonardo, Palladio, et al.

Illustration from Le Corbusier’s ‘Towards A New Architecture”


Illustration from Palladio’s Four books on Architecture

Through this process of measuring and comparing, we discover that there really is a very sophisticated set of relationships, of proportions, which govern the language of classical architecture. And this is where it gets interesting. Because we discover that one of the fundamental ratios used in classical art and architecture is that of the Golden Section (golden ratio). It can be found throughout the buildings, from the proportions of the plan of a room, to the shape of windows, distances between columns etc. etc.

The golden section is a line segment sectioned into two according to the golden ratio. The total length a + b is to the longer segment a as a is to the shorter segment b. See more about this at http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/GoldenSection.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

It turns out that the Golden Section is a very special ratio. It can be defined easily graphically, but not so easily mathematically as a whole number. It has an infinite set of results – small and big (the Fibonacci series is one expression of golden ratio proportions), and this means it can be used to generate relationships between things of entirely different scales: from the size of a sculpted icanthus leaf to the size of a city for example, or to put it another way: from the human to the urban.


Leonardo’s Vitruvian Man

And this is where Architects and Artists can get waylayed. Because all of a sudden, we believe we can almost see it – a system of measurement, of understanding, that encompasses everything – Art that consumes Science!

Le Corbusier’s “The Modular”

Dom. Hans Van Den Laan’s “The Plastic Number”

Fractal image

But this is a problem. This is science - not art or architecture. This is using a system of rules to try and proscribe (not describe) beauty. And Art and Architecture, like nature and society, do not operate on a pure system of rules and regulations. It is often the mistake, the error, the quirk against the system, the lack of perfection, which makes buildings / paintings / sculptures beautiful. Because in the end, we live in a world which is not describable empirically, a world in which we don’t have exactly 365 days a year, a world in which there isn’t exactly 8 notes in a natural musical octave, a world which is way out of the reach of our understanding through an all encompassing theory (unless you're Steven Hawking).

And this is why, although it worthwhile understanding the principles of a classical language, we also need, in the end, just to trust our own judgement.

This is beautiful.

That is ugly.

Etc. etc.

Architecture as Theatre

1868 Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Phidias Showing the Frieze of the Parthenon to his Friends

The Parthenon is considered to have been one of the best examples of Greek Doric architecture. We will return to the idea of Orders in Greek architecture in a future post so, for now, I'd like to focus on what it might have been like to visit the building in all its glory. This is rather like the difference between reading a play on the page and imagining a staged performance. The building today is a shadow of its former self so let's try to imagine what it might have been like in the 5th century BCE. Fortunately, several websites can help us in this quest.

The following text does a pretty good job of describing what it might have been like to visit The Parthenon just after it was completed:

"All temples in Greece were designed to be seen only from the outside. The viewers never entered a temple and could only glimpse the interior statues through the open doors. The Parthenon was conceived in a way that the aesthetic elements allow for a smooth transition between the exterior and the interior that housed the chryselephantine statue of Athena. A visitor to the Acropolis would be confronted by the majestic proportion of the Parthenon in three quarters view. As the viewer moved closer, the details of the sculptures would become decipherable, and when in proximity to the base of the columns, parts of the frieze would become evident in tantalizing colorful glimpses peering from the spaces between the columns. Moving towards the east and looking up, a visitor would be mesmerized with the depiction of the Panathenaic procession as it appeared in cinematic fashion on the frieze. A visitor moving east would eventually turn the corner to face the entrance of the Parthenon, and there he would be confronted with the birth of Athena high above on the east pediment. Then, through the immense open doors, any visitor would be enchanted by the glistening gold and ivory hues of the monumental statue of Athena standing at the back of the dim cella. The statue of Athena Pallas reflected its immense stature on the tranquil surface of the water-pool floor, and was framed by yet more Doric columns, this time smaller, in a double-decked arrangement that made the interior space seem as if it were even larger and taller than the exterior. It seems certain that the master planners of the Parthenon conceived it as a theatrical event. The temple was constructed with the movements of the viewer in mind, and by the arrangement of the temple, the monumental sculptures of the pediment, and the detailed frieze, the emotions of the visitors were choreographed to prepare them for the ultimate glimpse of the majestic Athena Parthenos and to maximize the effect of an awe inspiring visit."

Part of the building's beauty might lie in the control of geometrical relationships. The balance and harmony of the various elements of the building are the result of mathematical calculations. We will return to some of these ideas in future posts but one of the most important concepts is the use of optical effects which work to counteract some of the distortions caused by viewing three dimensional objects in space. Check out this slightly cheesy but interesting video which explores some of the optical tricks employed by the builders of The Parthenon:

Watch NOVA | Optical Tricks of the Parthenon | PBS in Entertainment Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com