The primitive hut

asalegitimizingconstructinarchitecturaldiscourse(17501850)
LindaBleijenberg,LeidenUniversity ThisproblemstatementwaswrittenforthePeerReviewColloquiumheldJune2012 attheFacultyofArchitecture,TUDelft. In1753theabbLaugierpublishedhisEssaisurl'architecture,inwhichhepresented lapetitecabanerustique,primitiveman'sfirstbuildingconsistingoffourpoles,four beams and a roof, as the ancestor and leading principle of grand architecture. In doingso,hereferredtoanotionthathasalongpedigreeinarchitecturalhistory.So far, two scholarly publications have devoted some attention to the idea of the primitivehut1:JoachimGaussarticleDieUrhtte:bereinModellinderBaukunst undeinMotivinderbildendenKunst(1971)2,andJosephRykwertsmonographOn Adams house in paradise: the idea of the primitive hut in architectural history (1972)3. In this paper I will employ a brief comparison between the two texts as a

Inaddition,severalauthorsdiscussedtheprimitivehutwithinabroaderframework.SeeforinstanceWolfgangHerrmann, Laugier and Eighteenth Century French Theory (London: A. Zwemmer, 1962). Chapter III, The theoretical foundation; William Alexander McClung, The Architecture ofParadise: Survivals of Eden andJerusalem (University of California Press, 1983). Chapter III, Garden and city, p. 114ff; Anthony Vidler, The Writing of the Walls: Architectural Theory in the Late Enlightenment(PrincetonN.J.:PrincetonArchitecturalPress,1987).ChapterI,Rebuildingtheprimitivehut:thereturnto originsfromLafitautoLaugier,p.721;NeilLevine,ModernArchitecture:Representation&Reality(NewHaven[Conn.]: YaleUniversityPress,2009).ChapterII,Theappearanceoftruthandthetruthofappearance,p.4674;andthearticleby RichardWittman,TheHutandtheAltar:ArchitecturalOriginsandthePublicSphereinEighteenthCenturyFrance,Studies inEighteenthCenturyCulture,36(2007),235259. 2 Joachim Gaus, Die Urhtte: ber Ein Modell in Der Baukunst Und Ein Motiv in Der Bildenden Kunst, WallrafRichartz Jahrbuch,33(1971),770. 3 JosephRykwert,OnAdamsHouseinParadisetheIdeaofthePrimitiveHutinArchitecturalHistory(NewYork:Museumof ModernArt;distributedbyNewYorkGraphicSocietyGreenwichConn.,1972).Asecondeditionwaspublishedin1981,to whichIwillreferinthispaper.

LindaBleijenbergTheprimitivehutasalegitimizingconstructinarchitecturaldiscourse(17501850)1

pointofentryintothetopicofmyresearchproject(assummarizedinthetitleofthis paper),andconcludewithaproblemstatement. Publishedonlyayearapart,thetextsbyGausandRykwertdifferbothinformand content.Obviouslythereisthedifferenceinlength4,butwhatreallydistinguishesthe authors is the way they approach their subject; Gaus opts for the systematic, historicaltracingofanideaandRykwertforthesprawling,associativeexplorationof what he calls a persistent vision [haunting] everyone involved in building.5 Comparingthegoalstheauthorssetthemselvesintheirrespectiveintroductions,we seethatGauscommenceshisarticlewiththeobservationthathistopichasnotyet beenstudiedwithinitsbroadercontext,andproposestofillthisgapbytracingthe rootsoftheideaoftheprimitivehut;themeaningsthatwereattachedtoitintheart theory of the past; and its relation to broader themes in intellectual history. The ensuingarticleisdividedinfourparts,thefirstthreechronologicallyandthematically trackingtheevolutionoftheprimitivehutinarchitecturaltheoryandpracticeupto themidnineteenthcentury6,thelastoneconcentratingonthevisualarts.Rykwert, ontheotherhand,declareshisaimtobetoshowhowthenotionofafirsthouse (right because it was first) was invoked by [some architects who are our near contemporaries]asajustification:thefirstprincipleoftheirradicalreforms7,andto tracethehistoryofthisnotionfromtherecentpastbacktomoreremotetimes.He proposes to do this by first examining architectural theory, where the notion of a first house was a piece of conceptual apparatus; and beyond that, by studying legend and primitive ritual aimed at recalling its form and nature. His book is organized in seven chapters, entitled Thinking and doing; Necessity and convention; Positive and arbitrary; Nature and reason, followed by a Gothic excursus;Reasonandgrace;Therites;andAhouseforthesoul. RykwertandGaushavemanyofthesourcestheyciteincommon:Vitruvius,Filarete, two cycles of paintings by Piero di Cosimo,8 Raphaels letter to pope Leo X, the illustrated Vitruviuscommentaries and translations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,9 Palladio, Scamozzi, the late seventeenth century French

Anarticleof63pagesofwhichonlytheinitial31pagesarededicatedtoarchitecturaltheory,versusabookof250pages moreorlessexclusivelyconcernedwiththeprimitivehut.Anotherdifferenceistheuseofnotes:Gaussupplies245detailed referencesinthelast12pagesofhistext,whereasRykwertssevenchaptersaresupportedby25to50veryconcisenotes each,exceptforthesixthchapter,onrites,whichsportsanuncharacteristicnumberof146notes. 5 Rykwert,p.13 6 Part I discusses the hut within the context of the classical doctrine of imitation of nature; part II focuses on the 18th centuryconnectionoftheideaofthefirsthutwithcertainstyles,suchastheGothicandtheDoric;andpartIIIintroduces th the19 centuryerosionoftheideathatartshouldimitatenature. 7 Rykwertp.13 8 Both Gaus and Rykwert refer to Panofskys interpretation of these paintings. See Erwin Panofsky, The Early History of ManinaCycleofPaintingsbyPieroDiCosimo,JournaloftheWarburgInstitute,1(1937). 9 Fra Giocondo 1511, Cesare Cesariano 1521, Walter Rivius 1543 and 1548, Jean Martin 1547, Daniele Barbaro 1556, PhilibertdelOrme1567

LindaBleijenbergTheprimitivehutasalegitimizingconstructinarchitecturaldiscourse(17501850)2

theorists,10 and the canonical eighteenth and nineteenth century authors on architecture.11Bothrefertosomeexamplesofactualbuildings;Gausalsopointsto imagesofrustichutsinmodelbooksforlandscapegardens.Rykwertlistssomeworks Gaus does not discuss, such as ViolletleDuc, Boulle, Durand, Le Roy, Piranesi, Lodoli;andaddssomemorerecentsourcesaswell,amongthemRiegl,LeCorbusier, Loos,MendelsohnandWright;butwhatdistinguisheshimmostfromGausiswhata reviewcalledanunfortunatetendencytostrayfromthemainargument12,leading himtointroducetextsonarchitecturethatdonotemploytheprimitivehutassuch, butareinsomewayrelatedtoit(atleastaccordingtoRykwert),suchasthevarious seventeenthandeighteenthcenturyreconstructionsofSolomonstemple,andthe gothicreveriesofRuskinandPugin.AgainunlikeGaus,hesweepspastmanysources outside architectural theory, such as the literary and philosophical works of Defoe, Pope, Vico, Rousseau, Hegel, Thoreau and Emerson; and in the last two chapters devotesmuchtimeandefforttolegendandbuildingritual. Asthetitleofhismonographsuggests,RykwertspointofdepartureisAdamsinfact nonexistent house in paradise, which might explain his choice of sources. Throughout the book he tries to connect architecture to matters of meaning, for instance when he explores the relation between architecture and language, at the end of the fifth chapter, and between architecture and ritual in the sixth. In the conclusionattheendofthelastchapter,Ahouseforthesoul,Rykwertdefendshis titleinapassageontheJewishhuppah,whichheinterpretsasbothanimageofthe occupantsbodiesandamap,amodeloftheworldsmeaning.That,ifatall,iswhyI mustpostulateahouseforAdaminParadise.Notasashelteragainsttheweather, butasavolumewhichhecouldinterpretintermsofhisownbodyandwhichyetwas anexpositionoftheparadisiacalplan,andthereforeestablishedhimatthecenterof it.Tomanyreaderssuchaclaimmightseemexaggeratedorevenabsurd.Butan awarenessofquitecomplexmattersofthiskinddoesnotnecessarilyimplyanability toarticulatethem,oreventoholdtheminahalfconsciousway.13Furtheralonghe referstothehumanpassionforbuildingenclosures,childrenmakinghomesunder tables or chairs, and the ensuing play on inclusion and exclusion, as noted by psychologists.14
RolandFreartdeChambray,ClaudePerrault,FrancoisBlondel.BothGausandRykwertdiscussCharlesPerraultsParallele desAnciensetdesModernes(1688)aswell 11 JeanLouis de Cordemoy, MarcAntoine Laugier, JacquesFrancois Blondel, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, William Chambers, Francesco Milizia, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Ribart de Chamoust, AntoineChrysostome Quatremere de Quincy,JohnSoane,JamesHallsGothicexperiment,BishopWarburton,GottfriedSemper,AloisHirt 12 WolfgangHerrmannsreviewofRykwertintheBurlingtonMagazine,Vol.116,No859(Oct.1974):Theauthorcertainly provides the reader with much food for thought. In fact, there is almost too much food ... It would have been better if ProfessorRykwertcouldhavebroughthimselftoforegothepleasureofindulgingindiscussionsonunrelatedsubjects... This unfortunate tendency to stray from the main argument reduces the effectiveness of an otherwise most stimulating study. 13 Rykwertp.119 14 Itwasexactlythistypeofreasoningthatreviewersofthemonographreactedto.TheJournaloftheRoyalInstituteof BritishArchitectscalledthebookapsychoanalysisofarchitecturalmeaning,lookinginwardratherthanbackward;John
10

LindaBleijenbergTheprimitivehutasalegitimizingconstructinarchitecturaldiscourse(17501850)3

Bycontrast,GausfirmlystickstothehistoriographicaltraditionoftakingVitruviusas hispointofdepartureinmattersofarchitecture15.Onthefirstpageofhisarticle,he places the primitive hut within the context of the problem of imitation of nature16, and points to the first chapter of the second book of Vitruvius De architectura, where the author reconstructed the beginnings of civilization, as the mother of all architecturaldiscussionsofmansfirstbuilding17.Inthispassage,Vitruviuspresented avarietyofhutsaspartofanoriginmyth:thesocalledinitiumtoposthathecopied fromcontemporarywritersonrhetoricandpoetry18.Beingthehumblebeginningsof whatbecameanartonlyatamuchlaterstage,Vitruviushutswereamerehistorical phenomenonwithnorelevanceforcurrentpractice;theearliestexampleoftheidea that the first hut could still be meaningful can be found with Filarete, who, in a Christian version of the initiumtopos, introduced Adam as the first builder. Interpreting columns as imitating trees, he also supplied an alternative to the Vitruvian idea that architecture imitates nature by following the proportions of the humanbody.Thismoreliteralmodeofimitationwentontothriveinlatertheory.In thesecondsectionofhistext,Gausmovesontotheideaofperfectionanditsplace in time, as it developed in architectural theory from Vasari onwards: perfect forms couldbefoundatthebeginningofhistory,weretheywereclosesttonature;inthe highlydevelopedarchitectureofancientGreece;andinthemoreorlessnearfuture.

SummersonremarkedintheArchitecturalReviewthatthereisnolimittothefieldofspeculationwhichProfessorRykwert has undertaken to explore and has at least partly explored in this learned and important book. Ernst Gombrich was markedlymorecriticalinhisreviewfortheNewYorkReviewofBooks:Mr.Rykwertisnotreallyconcernedwiththehistory ofanideaanideathatneverwasbutwith...memoriesorfantasiesofanarchetypaldwelling...Totrackdownandto mapthisclusterofassociationstheauthoradoptsthemethodsofthepsychoanalystratherthanthoseofthehistorian... There is indeed no dearth of material when it comes to speculations about origins and about the demands of nature in eighteenthcentury writings. It certainly would not be easy to organize this vast material, but here as elsewhere Mr. Rykwertpreferssuggestiveallusiontosystematicpresentation...onemustaskoneselfwhatreadershehadinmind.He presumablywritesforarchitectsanddesigners...butwouldthisclassofreadersknow,forinstance,whoFilaretewas?... Heislookingforwhatisperennialaduniversalinmansreactiontobuildings,butendsbyinvestigatingatribeofAustralian aborigineswhohavenobuildingsbutcarryaceremonialpolewhichapparentlystandsforatotemicanimalorobject...One cannotbutwonderwhetherthemethodadoptedbytheauthorisbestsuitedtothrowfreshlightonhisunderlyingtheme mans nostalgia for the past and his desire for renewal ... a romantic and almost whimsical essay. See also Wolfgang Herrmannsreviewreferredtoabove. 15 AtextRykwertreferstoinChapter5,whichopenswith:AtthispointIcannotavoidadiscussionofthetexttowhichall thewritersIhavequotedareforcedtoallude,andwhichmustberegardedasthesourceofallthelaterspeculationsabout theprimitivehut. 16 Gausimmediatelypointsoutthatbothimitationandnaturecanbeinterpretedinvariousways,andreferstoArthur OnckenLovejoy,NatureasAestheticNorm,ModernLanguageNotes,42(1927).HeaddsthatVitruviussawnatureas thesourceoftruth,anotionalreadyfoundinclassicalGreekphilosophy. 17 Remarkably,thisisnotthechapterconcernedwiththeimitativenatureofarchitecture:Vitruviusjustifiesarchitectureas animitativeartelsewhereinhistreatise,whenheconnectsittotheproportionsofthehumanbody. 18 The topos originated in ancient Greek texts, and saw the beginnings and progress of an art as passing through three consecutivestages:imitationofnature;answeringtonecessity;andthefinalstageofansweringtopleasureandcomfort, made possible by specialization, reflection, organization and experience. Gaus refers to the earlier mentioned article by PanofskyonPierodiCosimohere.Ontheoriginmythsofclassicalantiquity,seealsoArthurOnckenLovejoyandGeorge Boas,PrimitivismandRelatedIdeasinAntiquity(NewYork:OctagonBooks,1935).

LindaBleijenbergTheprimitivehutasalegitimizingconstructinarchitecturaldiscourse(17501850)4

This combination of classical and Christian views of history stressed continuity19, making it possible to postulate universal, suprahistorical forms of perfection. After Charles Perraults late seventeenth century observation that the Irokis of the New World built huts that were remarkably similar to the ones allegedly erected by the ancientGreeks,thisledtoanincreasinginterestincomparativearchitecturalhistory. With Laugier and his followers, the primitive hut became a weapon in the battle against traditional views on architecture; the second section of Gauss article discusses how its use was supported by the contemporary reorientation on nature and other primitivist sentiments, facilitating a revaluation of the Gothic and the Doric.Thethirdsectionisdevotedtotheerosionofthedogmaofimitationfromthe late eighteenth century onwards, and the alternative offered by Quatremere de Quincy and others: the idea that architecture has its own laws, and imitates itself. Gaussconclusionisthattheprimitivehuthasbeenemployedontwotracks:inearly modern theory the notion figured in a historical investigation into original forms; from the eighteenth century onwards a second, ahistorical search for essential formsthatcouldreorientarchitectureemergedalongsideit. In this paper I have outlined two approaches to the study of the primitive hut that couldbesaidtooccupyoppositeendsofthescholarlyspectrum.IfwefollowGauss conclusion, Rykwerts monograph might in itself be considered a primary source of thesecond type:the bookisconcludedwiththepredictionthatourperennialand inescapable desire for renewal, in combination with our tendency to return to originsinordertorealizeit,willcontinuetogivetheprimitivehutrelevance;forin thepresentrethinkingofwhywebuildandwhatwebuildfor,theprimitivehutwill,I suggest, retain its validity as a reminder of the original and therefore essential meaning of all building for people: that is, of architecture.20 While I admire the richnessofsourcesandcontextsassembledbyRykwert,Ifeelheoftenembedsthem in a line of argument that might not always connect them in a proper way. Gaus provides a much clearer argument, by taking imitationtheory as the structuring principleofhisarticle;buthecandosoonlytotheexclusionofother,possiblymore insightfulinterpretations.Finally,althoughbothauthorssignalthatthehutplayeda majorroleinthe(re)constructionofmeaninginarchitecture,neitherspecifieswhat was ultimately at stake: architectures legitimacy as an art, which could only be justifiedifbuildingsacquiredmeaningsthat,transcendingthestructural,spatialand functionalaspectsofarchitecture,wereculturalinthebroadestsenseoftheword.

19

SeeforathoroughdiscussionofthediversewaysinwhichhistoricaldevelopmentcanbeseenthefirstchapterofLovejoy andBoas. 20 Rykwert,p.119

LindaBleijenbergTheprimitivehutasalegitimizingconstructinarchitecturaldiscourse(17501850)5