GIULIO CARLO ARCAN ON THE TYPOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE This article appeared first in a volume of essays (edited by Karl Oertinger and offered to Professor Hans Sedlmayr on his sixty-fifth birthday, and published in Muni Beck in 1962, Itseemed to the translator to approach a subject which is central to speculati architectural theory both in this country and in America—but to do so from a rather standpoint and so contribute a new clement to current discussion, Joscph Rylowert Most modern critics who depend ultimately on some form of idealistic h would deny that an architectural typology could in any way be valid. They are rig so far as it would be absurd to maintain that the formal value of a circular theoretical treatises and the work of famous architects. It is therefore legitima tulate the question of typology as a function both of the historical process of ture and also of the thinking and working processes of individual architects, There is an obvious analogy between architectural typology and ico typology may not be a determining factor of the creative process, bur it is alwa dence much as iconography is in figurative arts, though its presence is not a ous, How does an architectural “type” appear? Those critics who would a “types” have a certain importance are those who explain architectural forms in re to asymbolism or to a ricual pattern connected with them. This kind of criticism has| Brom Architectural Deygn no. 33 (December 1963): 564-565. Itanslated by Joseph Rylewert, Courtesy of the publisher. 22 TYPOLOGY AND IKANSFORMALION(and cannot resolve) a crucial problem: does symbolic content exist before the of the “type” and determine it—or is ir just a subsequent deduction? This ques- of precedence is, however, not decisive where it is considered in the context of an process; when symbolic content precedes the “type” and determines it, dis is only transmitted in connection with certain architectural forms; in the same the reverse happens, the succession of forms transmits the symbolic content nore or less conscious manner. There are cases in which symbolic content is sought snsciously as a link to an ancient formal tradition; such a procedure may become an tant consideration by virtue of its historical and aesthetic function. 1wo test cases cious linking of architectural form with ideological content are those of the ism of centralized religious building of the Renaissance studied by [Rudolf] and that of a Baroque archiectural allegory studied by [Ilans] Sedlmayr. Quatremére de Quincy gives a precise definition of an architectural “type” in his ial dictionary. The word “type.” he says, does not present 39 much an image of ig to be copied or imitated exactly as the idea of an element which should itself asa rule for the model... the model understood as part of the practical exccution of art is an object which should ‘beimirated for what itis the “type” on the other hand is something in relarion to which "different people may conceive works of uit having uo obvious resemblance to cach other “Allisexact and defined in the model; in the “type” everything is more or less vague. The imitation of “type” thetefure has nothing about it which defies the operation of senti “ment and intelligence.... ‘The notion of the vagueness or generality of the “type” which cannot therefore rectly allect the design of buildings or their formal quality, also explains its generation, sway in which a “type” is formed. Tr is never formulated a priari but always deduced mi ascrics of instances. So the “type” of a circular temple is never identifiable with this Fthat circular temple (even if one definite building, in this case the Pantheon, say have d and continues to have a particular importance) but is always the result of the con- ation and fusion of all circular temples. The birth of a “type” is therefore dependeut the existence of a scrics of buildings having between them an obvious formal and tional analogy. In other words, when a “type” is determined in the practice o1 theo- ‘of architecture, it already has an existence as an answer to a complex of ideological, igious, or practical demands which arise in a given historical condition of whatever ture. Tn the process of comparing and superimposing individual forms so as to determine “typo.” particular characteristics of each individual building are eliminated and only * remain which are common to every unit of the sciics. The “type” therefore, formed through a process of reducing a complex of formal variants to a common form. If the “type” is produced through such a process of regression, the root form ich is then found cannot be taken as an analogue to something as neutral as a struc ‘grid. It has 10 be understwod ay the interior structure of a form or as a principle hich contains the possibility of infinite formal variation and further structural modifi- cation of the “type” itself. Icis uot, in fact, necessary to demonstrate that if the final form ARGAN a4of a building is a variant of a “type” deduced from a preceding formal series, the tion of another variant (o the scrics will necessarily deccrmine a more or less consid change of the whole “type.” Two salicne facts show that the formative process of a typology is not just a fying or statistical process but one carried out for definite formal ends. Firstly: ical sctics do not atisc only in relation co the physical functions of buildings bue to their configuration. The fundamental “type” of the circular shrine for instanc independent of the functions; sometimes complex, nhich such buildings ie was only in the second half of the nineteenth century that an attempt was made upa yypology based on the ordcr-of physical functions (cypical plans for hospitals, schools, banks, etc) which, however, has not produced any important formal Historical “types,” such as ccntially planned or longitudinal tomples, or toge 1 requirements; they are meant to deal with more profound problems which—at| within the limits of any given society—are thought fundamental and constant; i therefore, csscntial to lay claim to all the experience matured in the past in ord able to conceive forms in such a way thar they will continue to be thought valid in future. However much a “type” may allow of variation, the ideological content of forms has a constant hase, thaugh this may—indeed shauild—ascume a particular accent. character at any particular time. Secondly, although an infinite number of classes stubeclasses of “types” may be formulated, formal architectural typologies will always into three main categories; the first concerned with a complete configuration of ings, the second with major structural elements and the third with decorative ela Examples of the first category arc centrally or longitudinally planned buildings; of th second, flat or domed roofs, traviated or arcuated systems; and of the third, orders ¢ columns, ornamental details, ct. Nowy it is clear that a classification so constitued lows the succession of the architect's working process (plan, structural system, treatment) and that it is intended to provide a typological guide for the architect to low in the process of conceiving 4 building, So that the working out of every archi tural project has this typological aspect; whether it is that the architect consciously. lows the “type” or wants to depart from it; or even in the sense that every building is: attempt to produce another “type.” But if the “type” is a schema or grid and the schema inevitably embodies a mon of rigidity or inertia, the presence of such a schema needs to be explained in the of an artist's creative process. This leads one back naturally to the general problem of relation between artistic creation and historical experience, since it is from histori experience that the “type” is always deduced. What requires further explanation, how cn is the Proposition that at least a part of that historical experience Presents itself to Quanenitre de Otiney haraids ia an ‘objec? butveene or inductee ae am nite form but a schema or the outline of a farm; it also carries a residue of the experien of forms already. accomplished in 1 projects or buildings, but all that makes for their spe of their character and of theic true quality «8 forms; by sublimation into a “ope! age assume the indefinite value of an image or a sign. Through this reduction of preceding. 244 TYPOLOGY AND TRANSFORMATION