(History of contemporary architecture and urbanism third essay,

Piranesi observations on the letter of monsieur Mariette)

A predilection for contestation was indigenous in Piranesi's personality. His impressionable
years were spent in Venice in the knowledgeable circle of his parental uncle, the architect
Matteo Lucchesi, where Piranesi was established to the argument concerning the Etruscan
origin of Italic civilization in addition to the accomplishments of ancient Roman technology.
Lucchesi, furthermore satisfying architectural commissions, was a principal official (vice-
noto) in the Magistrate delle Acque, the state organization accountable for the republic's
harbor works and the vast walls of cyclopean masonry (murazze) sheltering the Venetian
lagoon from the ravening Adriatic.
Piranesi, come across by the marvelous of the ancient destruction but faced, as he
comprehended it, with a deficiency of stimulating commissions, launched his architectural
enthusiasm toward the imaginative fortunes of his own unconventional world. As a number
of persisting sketches and drawings disclose, he trailblazed the architectural delusion as an
investigational medium for experimental design together with a means of communicating his
paradigm principles to susceptible colleagues. As he demonstrated it, these rhetoric ruins
have filled my spirit with images that meticulous drawings, even such as those of the
imperishable Palladio, could never have succeeded in conveying consequently, having the
idea of introducing to the world several of these illustrations, but not expecting for an
architect of these times who could significantly consummate some of them— there appears to
be no expedient than for me or some other modern architect to elucidate his concepts through
his drawings.
My comments are: I consider that Piranesi's motifs presented things in a paradigm and
unparalleled way. With his remarkable experimental competence and wild resourcefulness,
he formed a mysterious image of Rome designed to enlighten the way we contemplate about
this primeval City. He illustrated it dramatic and tremendous in correspondence with tiny
human figures. He was likewise fascinated in Roman building techniques and commonly
documented examples of engineering in detail. He improved the idea of Rome and its ruins
throughout his spectacular and meaningful interpretations, consolidated by his choice of point
of view and perspective. Investigating in what manner Piranesi utilized perspective as a
compositional apparatus and as an instrument through which to manipulate the portrayed
topography will provide a comprehension into the mind behind these melodramatic
metaphors.
Nevertheless, in spite of the vigorous stimulus of stage design on Piranesi we can perceive
dissimilarities in style developing even in his initial sketches. Piranesi advanced Bibiena's
overloaded compositions and reduced the extravagant embellishment that concealed the lines
of the buildings. His illustrations perform superior structural distinctness and depict
enormousness of separate forms more persuasively. Simultaneously, Piranesi is very accurate
in controlling his etching method, using lines that diverge in width, and generating a more
natural environment for the scene. This extensive variety of line widths and densities enables
contrasts of black and white, light and shadow along with the regular fading of forms in the
distance. The principles that make Piranesi a splendid master of his age is: elegance of line;
perspective sketch monitored to excellence balance between the shadow and light; and
drawing meticulousness.