THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM A Study in the History of Taste GEOFFREY SCOTT THE ARCHITECTURAL PRESS . LONDONCONTENTS FOREWORD BY DAVID WATKIN . INTRODUCTION 1. RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 5 1V. THE MECHANICAL FALLACY ” V. THE ETHICAL FALLACY 2 VI. THE BIOLOGICAL FALLACY 5 VIL THE ACADEMIC TRADITION 186 ON os Vi HUMANIST VALUES a0 . ANALYTIC SUMMARY x9 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHYTHE MECHANICAL FALLACY 95 tific method that, only in so fae a8 phenomena ‘ould so be refered ght any mmofabie sala Be expected from thee study.) To this rule the ari “prove no exception. But they were affected by the CHAPTER 1V prevailing theories in two contrary ditections. (Ta any minds, asthetics, lke all philesophy, became {THE MECHANICAL FALLACY subondinated to the categories of materialistic and ‘Swen ia broad outline, were the tendencies and euch, mechanical science, On the other hand, those who for architecture, the results, of the criticism which valued art tended more and more to claim foreach (e Romantic Movement. art its separate consideration { For, since the xzence drow its inspiration from Very diferent in its origins, more plausible in its na ae eozoning, but in its inoue no less misleading, i the fk of inquiey—the subjection of each to its own school of theory by which this ertclsm was uccended hypothetical eeatment—it was natural that the ine {ret ‘put science, not sentiment but calculae arts, aso, should withdraw into a sphere of autanomy snow the misguiding influence, Te wa® impor Bs dereanct exemption from any vation but ther ble that the epoch of mechanical favention which lowe, Art for at's sake, forall ts ring of sthet followed, with singular exactness, the close of the ‘am, was thus, in a sense, a motto typical of the Renaissance tradition, should be without its effect sciatic age; and Flaubert, who gave it currency, in Bring the point of view from which that tradition was an essentially scientic artist, But the fine ars ros regarded. The fondamental conceptions of the ployed theie autonomy only to demonstrate thei time were themaelves dictated by the scientific complece subservience to the prevailing scientific investigations for which i became distinguished. peccuaton|-Eadh Towel the kre in a dieent Every activity in life, and even the philosophy of iy. Thus Painting, becoming confessdly impres- Tie ital, was interpreted by the method which i Sionistc, concerned itself solely with optical Thad proved ao fitful. Every ith statements about vision instead of efforts after fone particular fed, ae rc of things which elude mechanical explanai Bitcssce, Lieravire boceae links easter became disregarded, oF ozs ot ed documentary. _Acchitechure founded, as it is, ito mechanical terms{ For i vas an_axiom of Bo construction, could _be rendered, even more tenn Bp constrtion, could be rendered, evermore96 THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM adily than the res, in the terms of a purely sen “ie description -FE-aims, moceover, could sly be feguvetied into the Heals of the engineer. Where ‘mechanical elements Todisputably formed the ba: it was natural to pretend that mechanical raul ‘were the goal especially at @ me when, Tr every lof thought, the nature of value was being mon tor less confused with the means by which itis pro an Now[although the movement of thought we have just described was in no way allied to the Romantic fand may even in a measure, be regarded asa reaction Teast the ewo had sgaius it, yet one characteristic at in common, and that was an inevitable prejudice against the architecture of the Renaissance] The Specie of building whidr the mechanical movement rmost naturally favoured was the ulitarian—the ingenious bridge, he workshops, the Beat construce tions of siumphant industry, proudly indiferent to form, Butyin the "Battle of the Style,’ as the ant thesis between Gothic and Palladian preferences was at that time popula called, the iaflences of scence feinforeed the influences of poetry in giving to the medieval art a superior prestige, For the Gothic air were nok mer fvonsin of romans they had been geetly occupied with the sheer pro- blems of construction.) Gothie architecture, strictly ence when the javention of speaking, came into exh ‘THE MECHANICAL FALLACY 97 rmittent buttressing had solved. the constructive problem which had ual the architects of dhe north fever since they had set out to vault the Roman basilica, The evolution of the Gothie sty had hon, ‘one might almost say, the predestined progres ofthat constructive invention, The climax of its effort, and teal collapse, at Beauvais, was simply the climax and the collapse of a constructive experiment. con Vinwously prolonged. fn no architecture inthe world had so many features shown @ more evidently Purpose, than in the Gothic) The shafts which ‘clustered so richly in the naves were each a necessary ad separate articulation in the stencturalschem clviding themselves into the delicate tracenes of the roof, construction is till their controlling aim. ‘The [Breck style alone could show & constructive bass defined ; and, fora eration interested in mechani cal ingenuity, the Gothic had this advantage over the Greek, that its constriction was dynamie rather than static, and, by consequ sy at once mote daring fand more intricate. Thus Gothic, remote, fanciful, ‘and mysterious, was, at the same time, exact, cau lated, and mechanical: the triumph of science no less thant the incamation of romance:]{In direct sontrast with this stood the architecture of the Renaissance. Here was a style which, as we have cen, had subordinated, deliberately and without98 THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM hesitation, constsuctional fact to esthetic effect. had not achieved, it seemed not even to have desired, that these two elements should be made to corre spond. Where the Renaissance builders wanted the cefect of @ constructional form, they did not scrape Jo employ it, even where it no longer fulfilled @con- structive purpose, On the other hand, with equal Aisregaed for this kind of truth, those elements of construction which really and effectively supported the fabri, they were constantly at pains to conceal, and even, in canceling, to contradiet. Constructive rience, which so long had been he mistres Grchitecture, they teated as her slave; ane ROE con- “font with making MECHAMIGT expodients do their work while giving them no outward recognition, they {ppropriated the forms of ecentfc construction to purely decorative uses, and displayed the comice and pilaster divorced from ll practical significance, ike f trophy of victory upon their walls. And, in pro portion as the Renaisance matured it forms and fame to fuller self-consciousness ia its methods, this attitude towards construction, which hed already ‘een implicit in the architecture of ancient Rome, with its ‘combination of the arch and Fite, became ever more frank, and one might almost say, ever more insolent. Chains and buttresses in Concealment did the work which some imposing, but ‘unsound, dome affected to contribute; fagades ‘THE MECHANICAL FALLACY towered into the sky far above the churches, the ‘express, and buildings which aly fagaitude of whose in reality, were com: posed of several stories, were com scene in a single classic order: > I nly nay and ine that the most gl glaring examples Ath the principe hich thn ech thr lina aoe Mestad retin many a ib en en pot, They ae inherent in the pit of st a which the Renaissance ‘ a aesthetics. : i And, fn the continuous plane of inereas ing “insincerity which the style, it would be unreasonable and “ 0 trary to select this Point or that as the lmie of justifiable Heenec, and Aecry all that came after, whil Y after, while appiauding what went before. This none the leis the coms which is fashionable among rite those critics who fee that ‘concessions must be made, both to the strictures of te ‘Scientific"ertcism on the ane hand fscknowledged fame of the ‘Golden Ag tecture on the other of archi But such a procedure is mis: leading, and evades the tn, gal issue.| It is, on the con. re pee gi thatthe Renna make the closest examination of the destinfoo THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM which that claim involwes, [The relation of con Tiuction to design is the fundasiental problem of archivectaral esthetics, and we sould weleome the oesity which the Renaissance syle, by rising the wo acute a form, imposes for its discus. question flon_) But the isue i not such a simple one a the 1c" evtcimn invariably assume AWE must ask, then, what is the true ration of construction to architectural Beauty ; how did the that relation + and_how far Renaissance conceive seas it justified in its concep} STs begin by attempting as fairly as we may, to focmulate the ‘scientific answer to the fist of these “sti ; let us ae where t leads us, and if leads ts ito difieltes, let us modify ft as best we ean, mach eitics ane apt to say, ‘archi Architecture; Ts essential characteristic as an art thot it deals, not with mere pattems of ight and shade, but with stractarl laws, Tn judging architecture, therefore, this peculiarity, which com Wwenest as an at, must Hot be Over “the contrary, sage every af s primarily to bE judged by its own special qualities, itis pre- cisely by reference to these structural laws that archi tecural standards must be fixed, That architeesre, in shot, wil be Beaute in which the construction i best, and in which it i» most teuthflly displayed. THE MECHANICAL FALLACY 101 S And in suppont ‘is contention, the scientific ei will show how, inthe Gothic style, every detail ean fesse a constructive purpose, and delights us by our sense ofits fitness for the work whichis just there precisely required oft, And he will turn to the Dore style and aster the same of that. Both the great styles of the past, he will say, were in fac trathfull presentations of a special and perfect consteuctive piciple, the one of the Hintel, the otter of val — rock and medieval practice of architecture, it an reason dogmatically @ posterior, exee p xcept from the vidence of all the facts. If oll the architecture which has ever given pleasure confiemid the principle stated in the definition, then the argument would be strong, even if it were not i cally conchsive ‘Admitting, then (lor the moment), that the that the descrip tion given of Greek and medieval arch fir ne admin, a, the Greek pre snene in But we may suppose our scientific critic to replyfos THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM that he does not base his case on authority, but on the merits of his definition + that his argument is fon the contrary, # Prior, and that he cites Greek and rmodiawal architecture merely as an illustration. Can tre say that the illustration is a fair One ? (TS ita faficient destiption of the Greck and Gothié styles of architecture to aay that they are ‘good construc. tion, eeuthflly expresed 2 Te it even an accurate description ? ‘Are they, in the frst place, “goad construction"? Now, from the purely constructive point of view— the point of view, that ist say, of an engineer—good construction consists in obtaining the necessary results, with complete security and the utmost conomy of means. But what are che ‘necessary sulla ? In the case ofthe Greek and Gathic styles, they are to rool a church of a temple of a certain grandeur and proportion + bat the grandeur and proportion were determined not_on_practial_ but whee conden ha wat the grates ‘onomy of means? Certainly not the Doric order, which provides a support immeasurably in excess (Of what is required, Certainly not the Romanesque tr earliest Gothiy which does the same, and sohich ‘ery reason that it does so ‘and mediaeval construction, therefore, is not pure onstruction, but construction for an esthetic purr pose, and i is not, strictly speaking, “good” con THE MECHANICAL FALLACY 103 struction, for, const clumy and wasteful) ively, it is often extremely (Can we now describe it as “construction tnuthflly expressed’? Not even this. For the Greek detail, though of constructional origin, is ex ive of the devices of building in wood ; reproduced in stone, it untruthfully represents the structural facts of the [And i€ by ‘truthfully expressed construction it is meant that the esthetic impression shoul bring home to us the primary constructive facts (e very favourite cliché of our scientific critics), how are we to justify the much applauded ‘aspiving" quality of Gothi, its soaring spires and pinnacles ? In point of structural fact, every dynamic movement in the colifice is @ downward one, secking the earth ; the architect has been at pains to impress us with the idea that every movements, on the conteary, directed upwards towards the sky. nd we are delighted with 1s impression And not only does this definition, that the beauty of architecture consists in “good construction trath- fully expressed,’ not apply to the Greek and medial acchitecture,(iot only docs it contradict qualities of hese styles which ae so universally enjoyed, but it oes apply to many an iron rulway-sation, to a rinting pres, or to any machine that sghtly fulfle ‘ts function.| Now, although many machines maytog THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM tbe beautiful it would be a rductio od absurd to be forced eo adit that they all are + ll more that they ace essentially more beautifel than the Greek and hivecture, Yet to this conc Gathie styles of a sioa our definition, ast stands, must Fea us Clearly, then, when Grock and Gothie buildings are cited in support of the view that the essential Viroue of architecture lies in its being ' good con ake abjec- struction truthfully expressed," we must tion, and say, either these styles, and, a fertiri, all thers, are essentially bad, or our deli " mended, The scienticertciam would presumably “Prefer the later alrernative, Thove of is supporters “Who. ideify archivctural beauty with good and truthful construction (and there are many) it must sown ; and we may suppoce it to modify the definition somewhat as fllows Beauty, it will say, is necessary to good architec: tue, and beanty cannot be the same as good con struction, But good construction is necessary as wellas beauty. We must admit, i wll say, chat in achieving this necesary combination, some conces- ions in pot of perfect consteuction must constantly [architecture cannot always be ideally tbe made. ‘eonomical in its selection of means to ends, not perfectly truthful in ts statement. And on the other hand, i may happen that the interests of sincere construction may impose some restraint upon che THE MECHANICAL FALLACY 05 grace or majesty ofthe design, Bul good architecture, reverts, must be, om the whole, at once beouifd and constructively sincere Dut this is to adit that there are two distinct loments—good construction and beauty; that both hhave value, but are reducible to termsof one another How ten are we to commensurate these two different ements? Ifa building have much of the second and little of the fest—and this, many will sa the case of Renaissance architectre—where shall we placeit, what value may we put upon it, and how shall ‘we compare it with a building, let us say, where the rondtions are reversed and constnictive rationality coexists with only alittle modicum of beauty ? How is the architect to be guided in the dilemma which will constantly arise, of having to choose between the ‘wo? And, imagining an extreme case on ether side, how shall we compare a building which charms the eye by its proportions and its elegance, and by the well-dsposod light and shade of its projections, but where the intelligence gradually discovers constrictive "irrationality "on every hand, and a building ike our supposed rallway station, where every physical sense is offended, but which is structurally perfect and sincere ? Now, the last question will surely sugeest to us that here, at any rate, we are comparing some- thing that is ar (though, it may be, faulty at) with something that is not art sta (In other words, that106. THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM Tn the pont of view of art, the clement of beauty > indispensable, while the element of constrictive tionality is nots] The construction of a buildin, ig might conceivably be suggested, simply a utlitarian necessity, and exists for art only as a basis or means for creating beauty, somewhat as pigments and canvas exist for the painter, Tnsecure structures, like 3 all other structural considerations are, for the purposes of art, fading pigments, are technical faults of igelevant. And architectural csiism, in 60 far as it approaches the subject as an grt, ought perhaps to cou gray But there the scientific crtclsm should certainly have its reply. Granting i wil say, that beauty is ‘4 more essential quality ia good architecture than ‘constructive rationality, and that the two elements ‘cannot be identified, and adnitting that the criticism of architectural art should accept this pint of view, there ie till a further consideration. (e will claim ‘that architectural beauty, though diffrent from the simple ideal of engineering, ie still beauty of structure, and, as such, different from pictorial or musical beauty: that it does not reside in patteras of light “and shade, of even in the agreeable disposition of ‘lations maser, nit ig the structure, in the vis of forces |f The analogy between contraction and the ‘mere material bass of the painter's art, it will ay, is false: we take no delight in the way a painter stretches THE MECHANICAL FALLACY 107 his canvas or compounds his pigments, but we do take delight inthe adjustment of support to laud, and thrust to thrust.) Te is no doubt legitimate to add decorative detail to these functional elements ; they nay be enriched by colour or carving ; but our pleasure inthe colour and the carving wil be pleasure in paioting or seulpture ; our specially architec. tural pleasure will be in che functions ofthe structural elements themselves. Ie is inthis vivid constructive Sigifcance of colurns and arches that their archi tectural beauty les, and not simply in their colour snd shape, as such, and 50 far asthe structural values are absent, and the eye is merely charmed by other qualities, itis no longer architectural beauty that we enjoy. Only, these functional elements must be vividly expressed, and, if nocesary, expresed with emphasis and exaggeration, The supporting members must assure us of their support. (Thus, the Dore ‘or the Romanesque massiveness, while it was in a sense bad science, was good art; yet its beauty. was none the less essentially suctural. Thus, the printing pressor the railway station will now appro priately fall outside our definition because, although ‘truthfully and perfectly constructed, and fit for thelr factions, they do not eiidly enough express what oe functions are, nor their fness for performing them] Structurally perfect, they are still sructuc ‘ally unbeautful. [On the other and, the aches and108. THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM. pilasters of many Renaissance buildings may be narceable enough as patteras of form, but are no longer employed for the particular structural purpose for which apparently they are intended, and 0, in Gieinshing the ineligibility and vividness of the ne its beauty “Thus, the one geoup fails because, though functional, whole structure, diminish atthe same ti it is not vivid; the other Because, though vivid, i not functional [Such, or somewhat such, would be the statement of “cientifc” view of the relation of construction to architectural desigh;|as we should have it when Givested ofits more obviously untenable assertions and stated in exten, [Ta the modern criticism of architecture, we are habilully asked to take this Yiew for granted] and the untenable assertions ax well; and this fs accepted without dseysson, purely ving to the mechanical preconceptions of the time, Which make all rticiams on the sore of ‘structure seem peculiarly convincing. Such a view, even in the modified form ia which we have stated it, sets up an ideal of architecture to which indeed the Greek and rmedizeval builders, on the whe, conformed, but to which the Romans conformed very imperfectly, and to which the Renaissance, ia most ofits phases, id not conform at all, Te cuts us of, as it seems, inevit ably, from any eympathy with the later style. Be fore accepting this unfortunate conclusion, let us se= THE MECHANICAL FALLACY 109 sounds, a [ln theft place, ter hat the vd con seus ofthe bilding and nce a of ny atti value may posses, depends on this; and a apport which seemed to be adequate to its load, but actually ws nt, would, ar contruction, be ong, Buti ances. It is the effect which the constructive pro- that may be intellectually discoverable abot them sso, Ht maybe granted, alas oF ney in the same tense. |[The two requirements which architecture 90 far evidently has are constrective sppearance, Now, what our sentfie crits have taken for granted, i that because these two require, ments have sometimes Been satsfed at the same he same meses, no oth my no other way of ng them is permisible, But there has been 20 necessity shown ths far, no ii ‘one, for insisting that these ealons sd two alain hou sivys einstein and at both nts ably be sts ata single stroke. Their value in ¢to THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM. the building is of a wholly disparate kind : why, then, must they always be achieved by an identical expeient ? No doubt when this can be done, i is the simplest and most straightforward way of secur ing good architectral design. No doubt when we realise that this has boen done, there may be a certain intellectual pleasure inthe coincidence) Butleven the Greeks, to whom we are always refered, were far from achieving this coincidence. When they took the primitive Doric construction, and sated it to a perfect sethetic form, the countless adjustments optial effet. which they made were all ealculatd f They may not have entailed consequences contrary to structural requirements, but at least the optical effect and the structural requirements were distinct The Renaisance grasped this distinction between the several elements of architectural design with entreme clearness. It realised tha, for certain pur poses in architecture, fact counted for everthing, ond hat im certain others, appearance counted for every. ting, And i took advantage of this distinction tothe ful iteell produce the necessary appearan.| Tt con Te did not insist that the necessary fact should fidered the questions separatly, anu was content t0 secure them by separate means. Tt no longer had to lance in fetters. Te produced architecture which looked vigorous and stable, and it took adequate measures to see that it actually was s0)] Let ue se THE MECHANICAL FALLACY a what was the altemative, (Greok architecture was simply temple architecture. Here, architectural ant wos dealing witha utilitarian problem so simple that no great inconvenience was encounterc in adjusting its necessary forms to its desire esthetic character, Nor was there any incongruity between the esthetic and practical requirements of a Gothic cathedral But the moment medieval building, of which the scientie criticim thinks so highly, attempted to enlarge its scope, it was compalled to sacrifice general design to practical convenience, and was. thereby usually precluded from securing any sethetie quel bout the picturesque, And even soit achieved only 8 very moderate amount of practical convenience rw[the Rensisance architecture had to supply the utilitarian needs of a still more varied and more fastidious life. Had it remained tothe ea of socal constacve snc, hich ans na ‘ore than an atta insistence hat the snsceue and atic ecw of acter. shai. he sted by ove and theme expats inner fe seructurl beauty would have bea hampered atone tur] Andy nce this dma wen obvious to vey Avila only was the patel ange of ache tore hus extended without lo wo te seth eg, but that scope itself was vastly enlarged.\In theria THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM dome of St. Peter's wesee a construction, the grandeur of which les precisely in the sel-contained sense of its mass, and the vigorous, powerful contour which seems to control and suppor its bedy. Vet actualy the very attempt to give it this character, to add this majestically structural effect to the revouress of architectural art, mesat that Michael Angelo ran counter to the scientific requirements of a dome, ‘The mass which gives 20 supreme a sence of power isin fact, weak, Michael Angelo was forced to rely tipon a great chain to hold it in its place, and to this his suecesogs added five great chains more. Had he adhered, as his mosern critics would desic, to the Byzantine type of dome, which alone would of itelt have been structurally sufficient, he must have crowned St. Peter's with a mass that would have seme} relatively lifeles, meaningless, and inet Seructural “auth "might have tural vividness would have been sacrificed. Tt was boen gained. Struc- not, therefore, from any disregard of the essential constructive of functional significance of architectural beauty that he so designed the great dome, but, on the contrary, from a determination to socure that beauty and to convey it, Ke was only from his grasp ofthe relative plac for architecture af constructional fact and constructional appearance, that he was enabled, in so supreme a measure, to succeed. And it was by ther sense ofthe same distinction that the THE MECHANICAL FALLACY us architects of the Renaissance, asa schoo, aot only tnvched archivectore wth now beauty, but mores toy the cutee of onnay lie by bending to itsues the one rid forms ofthe antique. And this they cid by basing thir art frankly om the facts of pereption. They appealed, in fc, from abatat lito pyc) {i sila dete may be ene for the Reni sac practice of combining the ach with the ta in such away tha the actual structral vale ofthe later Becomes matory, and. meray valuable a2 surface decoration, ot for its elaborate spteme of Projection which carry nothing buethemlvea, I ve grat that architetora plese is based eset aly upon our ympathy with constractive fn as we fave agreed, offorenty consiictive form, then no ind of decoration cold be more sale toa tecture han one which, s0 to say, re-echoes the main theme with which all building’ is concemed. In Renaissance architecture, one might say, the wall becomes articulate, and expresses its ideal properties ‘hough its decoration, A wal is baced on one thing, supports another, and forms a transition between the two, and the clasic order, when applied deco- ‘atively, represented for the Renaissance builders an ide ‘xpress of these qualities, stated as gene. rites. The fallacy les with the scientific prejudice ‘hich inset on treating them as particularstatements114 THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM of consteuetive fact wherever they occur] And, if the Renaissance architects, on thie side; sometimes introduced a decorative onder where on purely tsthetic considerations the wall would have been better as an undivided susface, oF Wf they introduced a decorative order which wasill-roportiond in itself, fordetracted from the spatial qualities ofthe building which wavy in fact, unsuccessful os decoration— this we must view asa fault rather of practice than of theory, Aud theie tendency to abuse their oppor- tunities of pilaster eratment must be hel to spring from an excessive zeal for the esthetics of construction, the nature of which they understood far more exactly and logically thaa their modern crities, who, while Tightly insisting on the fundamental importance of structure not only in architectural science, but in architectural att, overlook the essentially different part which it necessarily plays in these two felis, fand who imagine that a knowledge of structural fact ‘must modify, or ean modify, our asthetic reaction ta structural appearance, “To this postion[the scientific criticism would have a last reply. It will answer—(for che complaint has often been made)—that this apparent power and vigour of the dome of Michael Angelo depends tn the spectators ignorance of constructive science In proportion as we realise the hidden forces which such a dome exerts, we must see that the dome ix THE MECHANICAL FALLACY 115 raised to0 high for security, and that the colonnade fats too low to recive the thrust, and tht in any cate, the volume ofthe colonade i inadequate to the purpose, even were the thrust received ‘Thisis one of thecommanest confsionscf ete, Just asin the previous question, the scenic view fails adequately to alstnguish ‘between fact and appearance, 50 here it fails to mark the relevant disinction between feling and. knowing. Forms impose theirown asthete characte ona duly eesti attention, quite independent of what we may know, cr no kom, bout them, This is true in regard to sientiic knowledge, just as in the last chapter we saw it to be true in reference to historical or literary knowledge. The concavity oF convexity of curves, the broad relations of masses, the proportion of part tw part, of base to superstructte, of light to shad speak their own language, and convey their own suggestions of strength oF weakness, lie or repose The suggestions of Unee forms, if they are geavinely fe, wll ot be mode by anything we may in etally dicover about the compley, machasial contons, which in a given situation may actually contrat the apparent message ofthe forma | The Imesoge rene the same. For (our capacity to rele the forces at work in a bulling Snell we all intent limied | at ave capt to ‘ale them ethane. [We fc the vase