Much of what we know of Greek architecture comes via Roman writing, notably that of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, usually referred to as Vitruvius the Architect. The oldest complete copy of Vitruvius’s “De Architectura”,usually translated as “On Architecture”, dates back to the eighth century and is a copy made by the monks of a Saxon scriptorium in Northumbria, England . This ten-volume work encapsulated most aspects of Greco-Roman design, extolling Greek theories of proportion which he mostly derived from the writings of Hermogenes. He postulated that there were three cardinal requirements of a building: firmitas, that it be structurally sound; utilitas, that it have practical function; and venustas, that it be aesthetically pleasing. Vitruvius’s ideally proportioned forms were derived from the ideal geometric forms discussed by Plato in Philebus. Plato claimed that these forms were “eternally and absolutely beautiful”. Roman architecture spread the Greek concept of proportion and its resulting aesthetic throughout the Roman Empire and thus it formed the basis of Western Architecture.
While we have retained the classical aesthetic forms, contemporary man has lost an understanding of the aesthetic philosophical principles that created classical architecture. Beauty was seen as being in harmony with the perfection of nature’s laws. The ultimate classical standard for beauty was not something subjective. Rather it was thought that if something was truly beautiful it would be objectively beautiful, that all intelligent and sensitive human beings would see an objectively beautiful thing as being beautiful. The laws of nature represented the gold standard for both beauty and goodness. In revealing itself to us, nature, rightly and objectively understood, demonstrated the meaning of good and beauty. Mankind’s duty was to live in harmony with our “ruling principle” – the native intelligence that is at the core of our capacity to reason. This essential “ruling principle “ that directs our human nature was seen as coming directly from the ruling intelligence of nature. Thus each person was a microcosm of the macrocosm which is divine reason. The evidence of this divine reason was in the laws of nature, which were seen as perfect.
Man’s moral nature was seen as linked to the great nature that produced us, as if a holographic fragment of it. By observing great nature, Man was to see the proper way of interacting with life. Beauty, human morality, and the laws of nature were seen as a harmonious continuum. The sacredness and beauty of life was defined in man’s integration and connection with the universal intelligence, the active principle of nature. The natural world of Greco-Roman classical culture was seen as being composed of two principles, the active and the passive. Ordinary matter was passive, and a finer form of matter referred to as pneuma (breath) was active. Pneuma, the finer matter, was the breath of animation, and everything in nature was a mixture of active pneuma and static or passive ordinary matter. Pneuma was associated with the soul, which was not seen as being immortal. Classical thinking was hierarchical – the finer and more active being superior to the grosser and more passive. The human mind was seen as the active superior and the human body as the passive and subordinate inferior. Everything was seen as interconnected and interdependent within a matrix of greater nature - that benign universal intelligence which was divine reason.
The essential nature of humanity was seen as being intrinsically social. Thus an individual’s life, when lived in harmony with the laws of nature, was free of self-interest and was dedicated to the greater good of the community. An individual’s first duty was social – to act and interact appropriately with their community and for the benefit of their community. This appropriate and natural interaction was described as virtue. The injunction toward virtue was not the commandment of some supernatural authority. It was seen as being the direction of great nature, not the directive of a great god. This injunction to virtue was seen as a logical and rational conclusion that any honest man would arrive at were he to subject himself to a process of careful and reasonable self-examination. The parameters of this self examination were seen as primarily social rather than, as in present times, existential and psychological.
The primary function of a building was to be a contribution to civic beauty. The building’s commercial or personal functions were seen as subordinate to the building’s primary function, which was civic and social. Architecture was to serve the community first, and the individual or business uses were secondary and subservient. Architecture was seen as being objectively beautiful to the degree that it exhibited sacred geometry, and the harmony that is evident in nature. In Vitruvius’s time the sacred proportions of architecture were based on the measurements and intrinsic proportions of man, and a man was based in and measured himself by his community.
Vitruvius's work endured: fifteen centuries later, when “On Architecture" was rediscovered during the Renaissance, it was the sole authority on Classical architecture.
[Next post: MacMillan Bloedel Building]
No comments:
Post a Comment