The Styles of Architecture

Progress, Volume XI, Issue 12, 1 August 1916, Page 696

The Styles of Architecture

A short paper read by Mr. Leslie D. Coombs, A.8.1.8.A., before the Otago Branch of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, May 24th, 1916. Judging by the number of buildings, of various styles, that are now erected, it is evident that a great number of we modern architects, if not all of us, have considerable trouble on determining on what may be the best style or styles for our purposes. It is noticeable that many architects have altered their style, not once but several times during their career. Why ? Is it because they have never given the matter

on it. The same may be said of the ancient Greeks of the sth century B.C. Why do not we improve on what has been done before without merely copying it? If we look back we find that as inventions were made in construction, so alterations were made in design. The Greeks had large blocks of marble for their lintels. They therefore did not require the arch. The Romans were less fortunate, in many instances they had to build their erections with comparatively small stones. They were therefore forced, if they required to bridge even medium spans, to copy , the Etruscans, and adopt the arch. It was soon found that very large spans indeed could so be crossed. Hence the development of those large arches, vaults and domes for which Roman architec-

serious thought, but have let various whims rule? Is it because they have been slaves to fashion? In either case they have been guilty of a crime against architecture. Our art is too serious to be governed by whims, and is based too much on reason and sense to be tossed about for unlimited time by fickle fashion. Unfortunately it is certainly being tossed about now —to our disgrace— but it has not always been so treated in the past, and in that thought we feel confident of the future. z

Let us go back to mediaeval days, say to the 14th century. At that date our Gothic style was .at its best. Were the architects of that period worried about styles? No. They just designed to the best of their ability. Did they copy what had been done before? No. They made use of what had been done before but they did not copy it. They improved

ture is famous. The Romans did not play with various styles as we moderns do. There was enough life in their architecture, and they themselves' were clever enough, to obtain all the required variety of design from the one style. Their architecture was by no means a copy of Grecian, for in construction and variety of conception it is a great improvement. In refinement only did the Greeks excel, and there is a very good reasona constructional reason—why that should be. The Greeks in having the finest white marble to work with were at a great advantage. Such a pure close grained material, capable of being worked to a fine arris, or of being given a polished surface, naturally led, if anything would, to refinement. Refinement becoming general we find that when coarser stone than marble was used, or when the marble was not of the purest quality, that the

Greeks plastered their surfaces with a very fine white plaster that took a high polish. In Rome, much marble was undoubtedly used, but its use was not so general. Tufa, a coarse volcanic stone, and bricks were used for even most important buildings. Another material the Romans made much use of was concrete. Concrete that could be made by comparatively unskilled labour. I think the Romans who added so much to our knowledge of construction and architectural conceptions should be excused if they did not quite reach the refinement of the Greeks. Now we shall take the Italian Renaissance period. For our purposes we can pass over the Early Christian and Romanesque periods dark periods of architecture when construction was nearly always bad and ornamentation not much better —barbarous, I think,

explains, them. When we come to the Gothic period

For example the figures on the Ghiberti’s first door to the Baptistery at Florence, and those over an entrance doorway at the Doges’ Palace at Venice, may be mentioned, Brunelleschi, the great architect whom we look upon as the founder of Renaissance architecture, realised what was required. He made full use of the work of the Romans, and he studied and practiced Roman technique. He did not copy Roman architecture. Other and later men of the Renaissance made that mistake, but he did not. He utilised Roman features and ornaments, but he adapted them to the requirements of his time in most original ways. For instance, there is little similarity between a Roman temple and a Renaissance church, and buildings similar to the early Florentine Renaissance Palazzi did not exist in ancient Rome. Unfortunately all the Italian Renaissance architects

we find that the builders were limited in construction to small stones, and consequently, the arch greatly developed, but the surface finish and decoration was rough to suit the, what may be termed "rustic" materials. About the year 1400, it became apparent that the Italian Gothic then in vogue did not express, was incapable of expressing, the national spirit. A wave of learning had spread over Italy. Refinement and culture held sway, as did also religious enthusiasm. How could Gothic with its grotesque gargoyles and other crude features be tolerated? It could not. It was too much to expect educated Italians, who had examples of Classical refinement in front of them, and who wished to design ideal Madonnas and angels, to carve the conventional Gothic figures. Henc ewe find among statuary and ornamentation the earliest traces of the« Renaissance.

did not have the genius of Brunelleschi. For awhile, as the style developed; Roman features were merely copied and not even used in original ways, but later when the Barocco or Rococo was in vogue, originality again was evident. Unfortunately, with the Barocco nearly every decorative feature was used as a sham, as an imitation of something else, and so this late form of the Renaissance has been generally condemned. About 1420 Brunelleschi designed the Pazzi Chapel at Florence. It was not till 1620 that Tnigo Jones followed with the Banquetting House at Whitehall. It may therefore be said that the English were two hundred years behind the Italians in having a pure Renaissance building. The picturesque Elizabethian and' Jacobean styles were the transition in England from Gothic to pure Renaissance. Inigo Jones had studied under Palladio at Vicenza. Inigo Jones was

our English Brunelleschi; He was another genius. He adapted Palladio’s style to suit England. We have never had an architect since, to strike such a true note. Wren is commonly spoken of as the greatest English architect, but it is remarkable that the nearer Wren’s work approached that of Jones the better it was. From the time of Inigo Jones till quite recently, very little improvement was made in construction, and it is remarkable as something more than a coincidence, that design did not improve to any extent. I consider that it is purely on account of this want of improvement that caused the great unrest during the nineteenth century. As we all know the last century was full of revivals of some sort or other — Classic, Gothic, Byzantine— fact, examples of practically every style were erected. During the last few years we have made use of what may be considered as new materials— and ferroconcrete, Surely we can invent a suitable finish for these materialsa finish that will not only be suitable for the construction, but suitable also as an indication of the times! Is our culture less than that of the Greeks, that we should be content with lines not more refined, or our inventive genius such that we cannot think .of new forms without going to either the absurd or to the ugly Let us do more than copy old work. Let us improve on what we have had handed down to us, and in course of time a new style, better for our purposes than anything we at present have, will develop. To me it is absurd to think that we cannot improve on our architecture, that new forms and improvement will never come, in spite of what many eminent architects have written and said on the subject.