How is the ordinary used as a precedent to inform new definitions of architecture?
I-Definition of the terms
Before tackling the subject, I would like to make clear the definitions of two key terms that enter this discourse. The definitions are contingent of my personal experience and don’t intend to impose themselves as universal. First of all, the ordinary; the meaning of the ordinary relies on the existence of the special, the unique and the peculiar by being the contrary; the normal, standard and typical.” Historically, [and architecturally] “ordinary” environment was the background against which architects built the “extraordinary” .1 One’s perception of the ordinary is then contingent to the period from which it is looked at.
Secondly, the precedent; the meaning of precedent, in architecture, can be approximated by the idea of the example, model and pattern.3 The use of precedent in architecture can be seen in different ways, first as the repetition of constriction techniques and materials and second as a repetition of symbol and style.4
In this essay I will be looking at the position of the ordinary as an architectural precedent to create new definitions of architecture, historically and contemporary. Looking back in the past but with the present and future in mind. I am interested in how architects take a stand in their use of the ordinary in order to produce new definitions of architecture.
II-Pre-Modernism (The temple facade: Pantheon)
In the past, the ordinary was the base from which new architectural theories and practices emerged. One of the first examples of the practice was done by Vitruvius in Ten Books on Architecture. The methodology laid out in the books is based on the observation of existing typologies in the context of ordinary architecture, proposing a definition of the architectural work based on the interpretation and to a certain extent reproduction of these typologies.* For example, Vitruvius dedicated his third book to the temple; here he explains the importance of symmetry for the design of temples. “The design of a temple depends on symmetry, the principles of which must be carefully observed by the architect. They are due to proportion, in Greek […]. Proportion is a correspondence among the measures of the members of an entire work, and of the whole to a certain part selected as a standard. from this result the principle of symmetry. Without symmetry and proportion, there can be no principles in the design of any temple; that is if there is no precise relation between its members as in the case of a well-shaped man.”4 Vitruvius doesn’t use existing examples of Temples to illustrate his argument, however, it is from his observation of the Temples built around him that he laid out his theory, not only his is here taking from the ‘standard’ around him, he is also defining it as the unique and correct theory to follow.
Hadrian’s Pantheon is an example that can be seen as a special building, of which, in a sense the design was precedented by other constructions, however, it became a precedent of its own thus part of the ordinary. “Hadrian’s Pantheon is one of the grand architectural creations of all time: original, utterly bold, many-layered with associations and meaning, the container of a kind of immanent universality. It speaks of an even wider world than of imperial Rome, and has left its stamp upon architecture more than any other building.”4 Here William L. MacDonald, in his book The Pantheon, presents the building as we see it in the contemporary eye, highlighting its important position in the history of western architecture, however, looking beyond that will reveal the contingency of historical interpretation. One element that I will look at here is the portico of the Pantheon, the eight Corinthian columns, the pediment, and the entablature can all be compared to the Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens of which the construction started during the 6th Century BC and was completed in the 2nd Century AD, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian.4
Centuries later, during the Renaissance Leone Batista Alberti in Ten Books on Architecture starts the first chapter of the first book by the following statement; “ Beginning to treat the design of edifices, we shall collect and transcribe into our work, all of the most curious and useful observations left us by the ancients, and which they gathered in these works; and to which we shall join whatever we ourselves may have discovered by our study…”4 Alberti is here clearly following the step laid out earlier by Vitruvius proposing to look at the building commonly around them as examples to learn from in order to shape new definitions of architecture.
A hundred years later, Palladio completes the Villa Foscari, the facade uses the same arrangement of elements as the Pantheon. The columns are fewer, six instead of eight, and are of Ionic order rather than Corinthian. However, the entablature and the pediment are still present in the same form. The facade of the Palladian Villa is borrowed from the Temple. The systematic and repetitive design of the Palladian Villas initiated, to some extent, the idea of a typology based on the standardisation of an architectural concept. That concept was further developed to what can be seen as a more contemporary understanding of the typology by Durand in his book De l’imitation à la norme. The title alone says it all, what Durand is trying to explain in his book is how the use of precedent created a pattern responsible for the standardisation of the architectural type. “Ainsi, les monuments peuvent être reproduits et, mieux encore, leurs reproductions permettent de les mettre en parallèle, les comparer et les classer.” Here Durand started to classify buildings from their reproductions which allowed to put them next to each other to compare them. Eventually, the comparisons and analysis of those buildings highlighted their similarities. According to Durand, unlike classical architecture which was based upon the orders, the new definition of architecture is established by the typology and the classification. “Contrairement à la théorie de l’architecture classique qui tourne autour de la definition de l’ordre, la nouvelle approche utilise la typologie, la classification, et l’organisation.” This new definition allowed architects to look at architecture from the point of view of the typology and the composition of forms and spaces. “La rationalization des préceptes permet de considérer l’architecture sous le double point de vue de la typologie et de la disposition – voire de la composition.”
The Manifesto of Futurism by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti (1908) is a starting point for modernist theories to emerge. In fact, Marinetti proposes a rejection of the past, and praise of speed, violence, youth, machinery, and industry. This theory then leads to others questioning the use of precedent from the ordinary in architecture. Diverging views appeared when looking at how modernist architects considered the ordinary. Modernism embodied the refusal of the historical precedent and to some extent -arguably- the idea of precedent. Here I will be looking at two different theories.
III-Modernism (Habraken’s Argument)
The first one, which in fact was for me the starting point of the development of this essay, is laid out by Habraken in his book The Quality of the Ordinary. Habraken’s theory is based on a break in the way the ordinary was used as a precedent in the past. He argues that modernist architects had for objective personal achievement and originality rather than precedent and context. “Where individual achievement and originality are the dominant objectives, precedents and context became a problem: their presence and inevitability must be explained.” He argues that pre-modernism, architecture was deeply engaged with its environment, it was grounded in it by the consideration of the context and the use of the ordinary buildings as the precedent; “Architecture appeared amid the everyday environment the way flowers bloom among the leaves of a healthy plant.” Then taking the example of Palladio, “we can be certain that the craftsmanship used for his architecture was basically the same by which the whole environment was built: masons, bricklayers, plasterers, and carpenters plied their age-old trades.” Again, the use of the ordinary as a precedent may not have always been through symbolism and style but construction methods as well.
“the everyday environment, by default, attracted the attention of architects in two ways. In terms of theory, the ordinary came to be seen as a source of inspiration: the recognition of something that has become precious. In terms of action, the ordinary was to be replaced by architecture: a territory to be invaded.” Here the ordinary isn’t defined by the building stock, rather it is looked at with a social point of view, looking at the everyday life of the users and what we can call the mundane to take inspiration from. Moreover, according to modernist theories, the use of precedent is different from the likes of Vitruvius, as the individual expression was praised, individual interpretation of precedent was defining their use. When Vitruvius was giving a precise interpretation of the precedent in architecture, the modernist architects had different translations of the precedent in the design process.
IV-Modernism (Summerson’s Argument)
The second, opposing, is from Summerson, where in his book The Classical Language of Architecture, he proposed a reading of the modern building with a classical eye and terminology. Arguing then the possible existence of the precedent from the classical ordinary in the modern.
“Classical buildings were continually being built but they always looked back, not merely to Greece and Rome but to nearly every succeeding phase of classical development, using the past as one glorious quarry of ideas.” I will here re-use the example made by Summerson, taking the turbine hall design in Berlin by Peter Behrens. “The great electrical combine, A.E.G., appointed him (Peter Behrens), their architect and artistic adviser and in 1908 commissioned him to design a turbine erection hall for their factory in Berlin. Behrens was faced here with the problem of designing a building for a strictly industrial purpose, but at the same time saving it the ‘prestige’ character which the company expected of their architect. It was typical code to which reference can be made – is something which conforms absolutely with the nature of classicism and lies very close to the use of the orders which are in themselves demonstrations of harmonious composition.” Further, the authors compare the turbine hall to a temple, “ The turbine hall is really a neo-classical building designed on the of a temple but with all the stylistic signs and symbols changed or left out.” Here, the materials are far removed from the ordinary temple, and belong to the industrial typology. The reference can be found in the form and architectural elements of the building. We can find the colonnade moved to the flank of the building and the portico expressed by the windows at the front. Summerson finds a pediment at the front, “ a ‘pediment’ which is not triangular but multangular to suit the structure of the roof behind it”
Behrens wasn’t the only one to somehow use the classical as a precedent, in fact, Le Corbusier’s work -who also spent a few months in Germany working with Behrens- can be read in the same way, “Le Corbusier was re-assuming a kind of control which had never been entirely forgotten but which belongs essentially to the renaissance and was fundamental to the work both of Alberti and Palladio.”
In The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa, Collin Rowe read -as Summerson did with other works of Le Corbusier- the Villa Stein at Garches, using a classical language of architecture. “the entrance front at Garches retains what could be regarded as the analog of Palladio’s upper pediment.” Rowe also compares the modern Villa with the Villa Foscari design during the Renaissance by Palladio. Joining Summerson’s argument of the influence of Classicism on modern architecture.
V-My view
To my understanding, both theories from Habraken and Summerson are to some extent valid. I believe that the contingency of the evolution of the ordinary as a subject in architectural discourse and its use as a precedent during the modernist era depends on the fact that although modernist architects are represented under a single umbrella, which is more or less defined by a few renowned names, individual expression was one of the strong statement which determined the movement.
VI-Post-Modernism
Towards the end of the 20th century as Post-modernism theories emerged after the destruction of Pruitt Igoe in the U.S. the relationship of the ordinary as the precedent in architecture was again questioned. In Learning from Las Vegas, Venturi, Brown, and Izenour proposed a clear position where architects would take freely from the ordinary. But first I would like to point out the definition of the ordinary given in Learning from Las Vegas, “Architecture may be ordinary -or rather, conventional- in two ways: in how it is constructed or in how it is seen, that is, in its process or in its symbolism. To construct conventionally is to use ordinary materials and engineering, accepting the present and usual organisation of the building industry and its financial structure and hoping to ensure fast, sound, and economical construction.”This dual definition is highlighting two concepts of post-modernism, process, and symbolism. “Artistically, the use of conventional elements in ordinary architecture -be they dumb doorknobs or the familiar forms of existing construction systems- evokes associations from past experience. Such elements may be carefully chosen or thoughtfully adapted from existing vocabularies or standard catalogs rather than uniquely created via original data and artistic intuition.”Here Post-modern architects allow themselves to take elements from the ordinary to feed them into their design for their symbolic authority. The Sainsbury wing at the National Portrait Gallery in London, designed by Venturi is taking the elements of the temple’s facade, the columns are present, yet they are applied to the facade as a decorative element, overlapping one another without symmetric considerations. The entablature is still there, although the pediment is missing.
The pediment will be found in the case of the Venturi House in the U.S. here, the facade takes the shape of the pediment as the columns and entablature are removed.
VII-Now? The ordinary and the special
To finish, I would like to come back to Habraken’s argument – though, looking at a different aspect of it- to reflect on the current use of the ordinary as a precedent to inform new definitions of architecture. Habraken looked at the relationship between the special and the ordinary and how the ordinary once inspired the special when we can argue that nowadays the ordinary is constantly trying to be special. ”Where in the past the special was the product of everyday practice honed to perfection, now daily practice is a domesticated version of innovative engineering and design. Where first the special grew from the ordinary as a plant grows from fertile soil, now the ordinary is a reduction of what is achieved in the special building, broadcast on a massive scale.”5 As the meaning and social character of the ordinary evolves through time, its impact on architectural discourse changes, and to some extent, I would like to argue that the way we – architects- perceive and define the ordinary is still impacting our practice and the way we perceive the architecture around us.