Reflections on Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-Le-Duc

         The 19^th century was a time of confusion as the world was rapidly approaching reform and progression in terms of politics, thinking, and especially art and architecture. For the first time in history, religion had taken a back seat to progression. With this movement came much confusion as to what was correct thinking and what was incorrect. Within the art realm, self-containedness was dwindling. Art was not strictly for aesthetic purposes, it was beginning to be an expression meant to engage the viewer. The same intentions were demanded of architecture.

         Zeitgeist, or the idea of expressing the spirit and the embodiment of the age, was a rising philosophy. Classicism was a dying movement and there was a split rise into historicism, positivism, ecclecticism, or romanticism. Modern ideas were beginning to replace eternal ones because of the positivist movement that arose during the age of reasoning. With that, the demand to define a set architectural standard style was necessary. But this age was one of immense criticism as times were approaching modern reform and the industrial revolution was setting sail. While the world was full of great revolutionaries and philosophical thinkers, who were finally given the freedom of speech, the need to defend one’s personal ideas and thinking was a new concept. This is evident when examining the 19^th century architects Gottfried Semper, Viollet Le Duc, and John Ruskin.

         Many new concepts were taking place as the industrial revolution had begun. New buildings, such as factories, and railroad stations were becoming new public institutions. And the church was no longer the city center of function. New materials and methods of construction were being implemented and much skepticism was also on the rise as to whether one should break tradition or embrace progression and how. With the use of new materials and the implementation of mass production came the fear that craft would be lost to progression.

         Gottfried Semper, a German mathematician and engineer who was a strong believer in local craft, was the first to make the connection of industry to architecture. Semper claimed that industrial art influenced monumental architecture. In his writings, he categorized industrial art into four types: tectonics (joinery), textile art, ceramic art, and stereometry (stone building). He believed that buildings take on meaning by the way they are made and the function they serve. He enjoyed the way that technique could draw attention to the procedure of how it is made.

This addresses that modern idea of engaging the viewer into the architecture. Semper believed that art was successful not if it is perceptible, but could be realized by others. This is a very modern idea of thinking, especially when applied to the works of artists such as Pablo Picasso. Semper saw great importance in the construction of the building, just as John Ruskin (an English historicist), and Viollet Le Duc (a French historicist). But the construction process was important for different reasons in their individual reflections.

Pablo Picasso's Violin and Guitar

               Semper saw importance in showing the procedure of how a building was made, much like Viollet Le Duc who valued the rationalization of the construction process. Semper was a believer in the evolution of technical skills, while Viollet valued the use of modern technology and materials to create a rational construction method. Ruskin on the other hand, detested modern materials, such as iron, and valued the traditional methods of construction and the integrity of the labor. He believed that the spirit of the laborers was the embodiment of the success of a project.

         Along with Ruskin’s theory that architectural success is measured in the joy of the process, Viollet Le Duc theorized the construction process would be futile if not for the equal help of everyone involved, despite their class or background. He saw significance in the construction process and rational structural system of the Gothic. Semper believed that man became closer to nature in the process of creating. Ruskin valued the natural characteristics of the gothic movement, shown in the ornamentation. Many anti-modernists at the time were disproving the modern theories and turning towards tradition and the church. This idea involved turning towards a more primitive time, or being closer to nature.

         Ruskin believed that the answers would be found by looking backwards into history, while Viollet Le Duc was focused on progression into modern times with modern methods. This difference in opinion was evident in their approaches to historic architecture. Ruskin thought that the integrity of the historic was only apparent if the building represented the natural in its ornamentation. He was drawn to ornamentation. This is evident in his book “The Stones of Venice.” The language of the Doge's palace in Venice is translated into the style of the Lincoln Cathedral in England, a work that he much adored. In terms of historicism, He believed that these historic buildings should be preserved but never changed. Viollet Le Duc defined the restoration process as the “renewal” of the old, claiming to bring new functions that weren’t in the original plan. Colquhoun argues that Viollet Le Duc reduced historicism to a set of instrumental principle that he could apply as a model of contemporary practice. 

Lincoln Cathedral

            Many of Viollet Le Duc’s drawings depict his use of modern practices and materials in the restoration of the old and implementation into modern architecture of the time. He most likely did not agree with the historicist theory. Viollet Le Duc was a doer, whereas Ruskin was a writer. While Viollet Le Duc was commissioned to restore some of France’s oldest structures, it was Ruskin who was criticizing the methods of Viollet. Ruskin believed that a building was best shown by its age and to modernize it would be to destroy the building entirely.

While Viollet Le Duc and John Ruskin differed in opinion and method, both of their approaches were relevant to the advanced thinking that led to the modern architecture movement. While Ruskin stressed the importance of ornamentation and nature, Viollet Le Duc stressed the importance of modern technique and materials. Ruskin was a backwards emotion and tradition based thinker, while Viollet a forward and rational scientific methodical thinker. It was Semper who theorized about the function of a building: saying its four basic elements were hearth, platform, roof, and enclosure. All of these theories are translated into the works of modernist architects.

Viollet le Duc's drawing

         In the works of modern architects, like Frank Lloyd Wright, you can see Ruskin’s idea of nature, Viollet’s use of modern materials and new methods, and Semper’s use of elements (especially hearth.) In the works of Louis Sullivan you can see Ruskin’s ideas or nature and ornamentation and Viollet’s use of modern materials and practices. The 19^th century architect's theories paved the way for modern thinking and design. It just took time to progress. However isn’t that a modernist’s main goal: to be ahead of your time?

Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water Cantilever

Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater hearth

Louis Sullivan's Guaranty Building Cornice

http://www.worldgallery.co.uk/art-print/Violin-and-Guitar-7565.html

http://www.wwowens.com/Lincoln_Cathedral.asp

http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/alsop/alsop-webpage-final.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falling_Water_01.jpg

http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/pictures/l/bl_flw_2.htm

http://www.buffaloah.com/a/church/28/tc.html