Ruins.

An Aesthetic Hybrid
Author(s): Paul Zucker
Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , Winter, 1961, Vol. 20, No. 2
(Winter, 1961), pp. 119-130
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/427461

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/427461?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The American Society for Aesthetics and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PAUL ZUCKER

Ruins-An Aesthetic Hyb

I. on the living. However, the remembrance

of the past changes continuously, from mere
RUINS HAVE HELD for a long time a
archeological interest to a general indul-
unique position in the visual, emotional,
gence in eerie moods or emphasis on the
and literary imagery of man. They have decorative values of ruins-sometimes more
fascinated artists, poets, scholars, and sight-intellectual, sometimes more emotional.
seers alike. Devastated by time or willful
These changing attitudes mirrored equally
destruction, incomplete as they are, they in pictorial and literary creations, were
represent a combination of man-made forms
rooted, of course, in general emotional cur-
and of organic nature. Thus the emotional
rents and spiritual trends of the respective
impact of ruins is ambiguous: we cannot say
epochs. It certainly cannot be explained
whether they belong aesthetically in the by the de facto changing appearance of
realm of art or in the realm of nature. They ruins themselves. To elaborate on the writ-
can no longer be considered genuine works
ten word should be left to the literary his-
of art since the original intention of the torian, whereas we are dealing here with
builder has been more or less lost. Neither
the visual manifestation of these various
can they be taken as an outgrowth of nature
psychological attitudes.
since man-made elements continue to exist
Today the popular approach to ruins
as a basis for what nature later on has
still reflects the traditional 18th- and 19th-
contributed.
century images. For that very reason some
The "Pleasure of Ruins"' was wide-
highbrows like to call the interest in ruins
spread, from the time of the Renaissance on
old-fashioned, since the popular concept of
and was intensified in the 17th, 18th, and
ruins in our time has been created by the
19th centuries, during which periods the Romanticism of the 18th and 19th cen-
interest in and love for ruins were based
turies, from Jean-Jacques Rousseau and
on very different concepts. It goes without Horace Walpole on. The shimmer of a
saying that the interest in ruins, from the
silvery moon, turbulent dramatic clouds,
proverbial revival of antiquity in the Ren- and melancholic lonely maidens became al-
aissance on, is most closely connected with most contingent requisites.
the understanding of the impact of history The different ways in which ruins were
seen and interpreted at different times
should not induce us to any generalizations
PAUL ZUCKER is adj. professor of history of art, ar- and to forget exceptions and overlappings.
chitecture and aesthetics at Cooper Union and the
New School for Social Research, New York. His most Even an individual artist sees and interprets
recent book is Town and Square: From the Agora ruins often in different ways.
to the Village Green (Columbia U. P., 1959). This Sources for the interpretation of past
article has been developed from a paper, "Ruins,periods are contemporaneous poems, novels,
Their Meaning as Architecture vs. Symbolic and
Literary Interpretation," read at the Annual Meet- diaries, letters, and other literary documents
as
ing of the Society of Architectural Historians, New well as paintings and works of graphic
York, 1960.
arts. Some examples may very briefly be

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 120 PAUL ZUCKER

mentioned pletely: now, one and a half centuries after

althoug
here a history
its first appearance as a mere prop, theof ruin
In a brief summarization and without try- itself becomes a legitimate topic for paint-
ing to pigeonhole dogmatically the not al-ing, with painters like Monsui F. Desiderio
ways rationally definable approaches of the(act. c. 1617-1631)2 and Salvator Rosa
individual artist three main categories can (1615-1673).3 Mannerism and Baroque con-
be established: ceived ruins primarily as stimulating motifs
(1) The ruin as a vehicle to create a of painterly bravura, and opportunities for
romanticizing mood with all its associations; the scintillating interplay of light and
(2) the ruin as document of the past- shadow, of nuances of color, provided for
from its architecturally interesting details to by the interesting contrasts between the
the overall architectural form of a specific tonal values of withered stones and growing
building; vegetation which naturally could not be
(3) the ruin as means of reviving the found in unimpaired works of architecture.
original concept of space and proportion of With Monsuf Desiderio, columns, archi-
periods past. traves, aediculae, reliefs, and other details
Actually these three basic aesthetic atti- become clearly recognizable objects of in-
tudes are seldom pure and consistent; transi-terest, though quite obviously the appear-
tions from one to the other are frequent. ance of withering destruction fascinates the
Neapolitan artist more than architectural
II. exactitude (fig. 2). The combination of de-
stroyed architectural elements with bushes
The Rennaissance evaluated ruins, beyond and other plants growing out of the stone,
their importance as source for archeological and their contrast to living and moving hu-
research, essentially as documents of the man beings-as "staffage" under the pretext
glorious pagan past. During this period the of telling a religious or mythological story-
clarification of archeological forms was left mirror clearly the mood, the appeal to
to the basic architectural treatises such as emotional sensitiveness that later on should
the new editions of Vitruvius, Leone Battista
be called Romanticism. One generation
Alberti, Serlio, Vignola, and Palladio. But later, with the oeuvre of Salvator Rosa,
not always did one clearly distinguish be- painter, poet, and musician, the ruin as
tween the historical and the aesthetic im- topic, beyond its details, became the fashion
portance of a ruin, a confusion still fre-
and the fad of European collectors. Still
quently encountered today. The reaction one hundred years after the painter's death,
of modern sightseers on the Forum Ro- Horace Walpole of Strawberry Hill fame
manum is a classical proof of such oblique considered Salvator Rosa one of the great-
reaction. est painters.4 Later, Sebastiano Ricci (1659-
When ruins appear in painting first, 1734) in his work approached the ruin from
around the middle of the Quattrocento, a similar viewpoint and sentiment.
they were employed to depict the place of Yet, to keep us from unjustified generali-
the birth of Christ, the stable, as part of a zations, based merely on the work of those
delapidated building. These ruins have three Italian painters, let us briefly compare
only circumstantial meaning. In the Nativ- the concepts of two other masters in whose
ities of Fra Filippo Lippi, of Botticelli, work the ruin plays a decisive part, though
Ghirlandajo, and their contemporaries, the in very different ways, factual vs. romanticiz-
ruin in the background serves to indicate ing: Nicolas Poussin and Jacob van Ruis-
the humble environment where Christ was
dael. The "classicist" Poussin (1594-1665)5
born, as do oxen and ass. No interest is ever in his typical "heroic landscape" likes to em-
evident in the structure as such but only in ploy ancient fragments and ruins in the
its ruinous state, strongly emphasized (fig. foreground, complete architecture in the
1). background. Geometrically organized, these
In the 17th century, however, the func- structural elements serve as three-dimen-
tion of the ruin in painting changes com- sional checking points to establish a har-

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ruins-An Aesthetic Hybrid 121

Fig. 1. Fra Filippo L

or Fra Diamante (?).
Nativity. Paris, Louvre.

Fig. 2. Monsui Desiderio.

The Burning of Sodom.
Courtesy, Durlacher Bros.
New York City.

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 122 PAUL ZUCKER

have become far more popular. Since a com-

plete survey of the numerous painters of
ruins during that century would not con-
tribute aesthetically anything new, we con-
fine ourselves to a few. Giovanni Paolo Pan-
nini (1691/2-1765)8 changes in his concept
from a starkly romantic approach, empha-
sized by the oscillating play of light and
shadow and by the carefully calculated in-
completeness of each architectural element,
to clearly delineated almost archeological
vistas of ruins. In his Ancient Roman Mon-
uments (1735) from the Kaiser-Friedrich
Museum in Berlin (fig. 3) he stresses archi-
tecture as its main topic and the emotional
Fig. 3. Giovanni Paolo Pannini. Ancient Roman romantic element is almost completely sup-
Monuments. Berlin, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum.
pressed. Here Pannini's poetic imagination
(Photo Raymond & Raymond, New York, N. Y.).
is confined to an entirely fictitious topog-
raphy as he tries to display as many famous
monuments as possible. Even today, tourists
in Italy can buy similar vistas in machine-
made mass-produced tapestries showing all
monious balance between horizontals and architectural highlights of a town com-
verticals. No attempt is made to evoke ro- bined, independent of their actual location
mantic associations. The northern baroque -all that money can buy. In contrast to his
artist, Jacob van Ruisdael (1628-1682),6 onromanticizing paintings, the "documentary"
the other hand, is interested neither in with its famous ruins-quite obviously a
architectural forms for their own sake, nor commercial production intended for tour-
in their volume qualities. He uses them only ists as were so many by the same artist-
as mood-creating props on one level with is artistically inferior to those with roman-
trees, clouds, and rainbow. ticizing emphasis on the expression of a
specific mood.
I . The comparison of such paintings by
Pannini and of other contemporaries with
The 18th century represents stage settings of thethe
period climax
is cogent (fig. of
the widespread interest in ruins, now
4).9 Throughout the 17th and 18th cen-seen
essentially as elements of a landscape rather
turies, operas and plays-quite stereotyped
than as architecture, and
in their the
settings forromantic
specific scenes-pre- ap-
proach prevails. With the
sented Genoese
always painter
at least one prison scene or
Alessandro Magnasco (1667-1749)7 Ro- a wild landscape with ruins. Thus the
manticism triumphs definitely. Moreover,
mutual influence was quite natural.
the depiction of ruins takes on a didactic How pedantic and biased it would be to
meaning, comparable to the earlier vanitas identify the concepts of ruins by one indi-
still lifes of the Spanish, a memento mori,vidual artist with one or the other approach
for the purpose of moral edification. The is proven by the etchings of Giovanni Bat-
beholder should be reminded of the tran- tista Piranesi (1720-1778).10 Although Pira-
sience of all life. Ruins and even the sur- nesi envisions principally ruins from the
rounding nature, dramatized by menacing factual archeological point of view and his
clouds and whirlpools of dust and an eerie main publications, Antichita Romane
light, intensify the mood. (1756) and Della Magnificenza ed Archi-
Compared with Magnasco's demonic per- tettura de' Romani (1761) are generally
sonality, other 18th-century painters of considered documentary proof of the state
ruins seem to be less dramatic, though they of Roman ruins in the second half of the

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ruins-An Aesthetic Hybrid 123

Fig. 4. Pietro Gaspari.

Stagesetting: Tempio Antico
Rovinato (from Corrado
Ricci, Scenografia Italiana
[Milan, 1930]).

Fig. 5. Giov. Batt. Piranesi.

The Arch of Titus.
About 1760; Hind, 55.
(Courtesy of The
Metropolitan Museum of
Art, Rogers Fund, 1941).

18th century, yet Piranesi is an emotional approach to Roman ruins can be observed in
romanticist. Whereas he mostly depicts ar-many of the numerous engravings and etch-
chitecture in an entirely objective and realis- ings from the end of the 17th to the begin-
tic manner, in painstakingly exact likeness,ning of the 19th century.
subordinating even their human staffage, Francesco Guardi's (1712-1793)"1 ruins
restraining his subjective, free-floatingserve merely as a decorative background for
imagination, he cherishes in other prints his playful scenes. Contrary to the majority
natural growth, trees, and human figures of his oeuvre, the well-known vistas from
in motion, from a purely painterly view- Venice, the ruins in his fantastic tableaux
point (fig. 5). He looks at these with the are imaginary, neglecting completely any
same interest as he looks at arches, vaults,architectural, archeological, as well as any
and columns of antiquity. This split in the emotional values.

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 124 PAUL ZUCKER

Fig. 6. Virginia Wat

IV. parks, where, of course, no genuine ruins

existed. This fad was most intimately inter-
On the whole, the concept of art had related with the development of the so-
changed during the 18th century with the called English garden. In contrast to the
stronger emphasis on visual properties. formal "classical" French park, the English
Thus we can understand the "picturesque" garden with its ambition to emulate natural
almost as a step toward abstraction and growth is inseparably interlaced with the
even, in a certain way, as a kind of "practi-creation of artificial ruins-the love for
cal aesthetic for gardeners, tourists, and them based on two trends: the emotional,
sketchers."12 The yearning for the romanticromantic "mood" creating potentialities
qualities of broken columns, delapidated and an honest worship of the splendor of
brick arches, and of half-destroyed bridges the past.13
is probably nowhere more clearly expressed In England, a burning interest reap-
than in artificial ruins. We read already in peared in the works of the great landscape
Vasari's Lives that Girolamo Genga, archi- painters of the 17th century, in the oeuvre
tect, sculptor, painter, stage designer, and of Salvator Rosa, Poussin, and Ruisdael.
archeologist had built, in 1510, for the Duke The translation of these imaginary land-
of Urbino a house out of Roman columns, scapes into reality became an ambition of
arches, and architraves, actually a sham the English gentry. Sir John Vanbrugh, one
ruin. Although sweet reason naturally of the greatest English architects at the end
should condemn all kinds of eclectic arti- of the 17th century, had paved the way for
ficiality, faked ruins appeared in the 18th romantic concepts with his revival of Gothic
century in all English, French, and Germanforms in some of his architecture and with

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ruins-An Aesthetic Hybrid 125
his new feeling for landscaping
18th asspreading
century contributed to the express
in the gardens of Stowe, Buckinghamshire
interest in ruins and is proven most obvi-
1719, so much admired by Alexander
ously in Gibbons' Decline and Fall of thePope
Somewhat later we find
Roman Empirethe(1776). same prefer-
ence for artificial ruins In France, among
the writings of the pioneer
Jean-Jacques
of the great English landscape
Rousseau had prepared not architects
only intellect- o
the 18th century: William Kent (1685- uals but also the general public for the
1748), in spite of his simultaneous propaga-
frozen sentimentality, associated with such
tion of Palladian ideas under Lord Bur- artificial ruins. The best French examples
lington's sponsorship, and Sir William can be found in the famous Parc Monceau,
Chambers (1726-1796).14 In one of Cham- organized by Philipp of Orleans, around
bers' first creations, in Kew Gardens, one 1780 with Gothic and Greek artificial ruins
encounters besides Chinese pagodas and around an artificial lake; or at the "Ham-
mosques the unavoidable artificial ruin, in let" of Marie Antoinette in the Park of
this instance a faked Roman triumphal archVersailles, in combination with fake peasant
in decay (1758-1759). Even earlier, 1746, thehuts and their playful rural atmosphere.
Duke of Cumberland had built a magnifi- The clearest identification of ruins with
cent artificial ruin, Virginia Water near symbols of the philosophy of history will be
Windsor, where genuine ancient columns encountered in Constantin Francois Chasse-
had been brought from Leptis Magna, boeuf de Volney's Ruins or Meditations on
Africa, augmented by artificial parts in fakedthe Revolution of Empires, first published
ruinous state with most elaborate archi- in 1791.
tectural details-all newly built and then In Germany, the new fad was emotionally
willfully destroyed (fig. 6). prepared for especially by the poets Hein-
The contemporaneous literary trend withrich von Kleist (1777-1811) and the Swiss
its emphasis on tender emotion and playfulSalomon Gessner (1730-1788). The Tri-
melancholy stimulated this interest in ruinsumph der Empfindsamkeit (triumph of sen-
to an even higher degree. Poets and prose timentality) as this period was called in Ger-
writers in England tended to use continu- many, represented a typically German
ously architectural images as metaphorical systematization and almost dogmatic stand-
vehicles. In the background of their imagi- ardization of the new attitude toward nature
nation there was always the ruin, classical and landscape. It found its concise expres-
or Gothic, such as Westminster Abbey, sion, as far as the new style of landscaping
Fountains Abbey, Sanderson Mills, Hazleyand ruins were concerned, in the writings of
Park, etc. From a moralistic and religious Christian G. L. Hirschfeld, professor of phi-
viewpoint the philosopher Third Earl An- losophy and simultaneously landscape archi-
thony Ashley Cooper Shaftesbury (1671-tect. His Theorie der Garten Kunst (1777-
1713) recognized the symbolic quality of1782) was of the greatest influence not only
ruins. Joseph Addison (1672-1719) followedin Germany but also in other European
in his footsteps and, last but not least, Alex-countries. The ever-present mood of Roman-
ander Pope (1688-1744). It would go beyondticism, in its specific German version, was
the intention of this paper to analyze the glorified in Wilhelm Heinrich Wacken-
emphasis on ruins in English 18th-centuryroder's Herzensergiessungen eines kunstlie-
literature which becomes most obvious in benden Klosterbruders, 1797.
the works of Thomas Gray (1716-1771).15 Princely parks in Germany, planted dur-
Thomas Wharton writes of the Pleasures ing the 18th century, still today show an
of Melancholy (1747) and Horace Walpole abundance of artificial ruins, the most
mirrors in his Essay on Modern Gardening beautiful and famous in the parks in and
(1785) identical tendencies. Glorifying the around Potsdam, actually plastered with
charms of decay and indulging in pensive artificial fanciful Gothic and classic ruins;
meditation, they all see a ruin as a "mighty Woerlitz; the Ilmpark in Weimar; Schwet-
picture in three dimensions." The rapidly zingen; Veitshoechheim; Wilhelmshoehe
increasing historical consciousness of the near Cassel; and many others. A counter-

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fig. 7. Pommersfelden Castle.
(from Heinrich Kreisel,
Das Schloss zu Pommersfelden, [Munich, 1953]).
part to these artificial ruins are decorative
murals in Pommersfelden Castle by Gio-
vanni Francesco Marini where the walls of
one room are covered with illusionistic
ruins, represented as if they were tumbling
down upon the visitor (fig. 7).
What in the North was generally called
the age of Romanticism showed itself there
in painting relatively late, actually later
than in literature, gardening, etc., roughly
between 1790 and 1840. A tremendous num-
ber of paintings could be quoted here as
examples, from the English Joseph M.
William Turner, William Pars, W. H. Bart-
lett and John Constable, to the German
Philipp Hackert, Friedrich August Tisch-
bein and, most characteristic, David Caspar
Friedrich (1774-1840). In his work the ob-
vious symbolism of ruins in the landscape
carries the humble, ultrapoetic lyricism of
the specific German Romanticism to a cli-
max (fig. 8). It is only natural that the Ameri-
can Romantic school showed much less in-
terest in ruins, only in the work of Thomas
Cole (1801-1846), and hardly ever in the
paintings of Washington Allston and Albert
.Rierctr tf-

Fig. 8. David Caspar Friedrich.

Ruins of a Monastery and Churchyard in Snow.
1819, Berlin, Nationalgalerie (from Herbert
von Einem, David Caspar Friedrich [Berlin, 1938]).

^^,^^JP^?lte^^'^^^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~; Ww-,"*..*-.*W^^^^* *****-* *****

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ruins-An Aesthetic Hybrid 127
The interest in and longing for the pictur- out. Most typical of this approach is the
esque charm of ruins was so strong thatfamous publication of copper engravings of
even actually existing structures were en- Athens by James Stuart and Nicholas
visioned by artists as ruins. Thus Joseph Revett, published after their sojourn there,
Michael Gandy (1771-1843) drew the Bank 1751-1754. It spread over the whole of Eu-
of England, demolished and weatherbeaten rope and represents, together with the theo-
as he imagined it in the future. Or, in retical writings of Johann Joachim von
France, Hubert Robert painted the Louvre Winckelmann, actually the beginning of
Gallery as it looked in 1796 and, as counter- true archeological research. The drawings
part, another canvas showing the same gal- in their objectivity go far beyond the se-
lery as he imagined it later in a ruinous state quences of earlier Roman publications and
(figs. 9 and 10). Nothing could characterize even of Piranesi; they are entirely factual.
better the attitude of this era where genuine The ruins are depicted and carefully meas-
and artificial ruins catered equally to the ured as they were then in situ. The more the
lacrimose sentimentality of the century. general interest in scholarly archeology
To balance the prevalent romantic atti- grew, the more often we encounter docu-
tude the interest in factual statement of mentary depiction besides the romanticized
archeological discoveries had never died ruin.

Fig. 9. Hubert Robert.

The Gallery of tie Louvre.

Fig. 10. Hubert Robert.

The Ruins of the Louvre.
Formerly at Tsarkoje-Tselo.

:dsi g ishblt

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 128 PAUL ZUCKER

V.

The extreme opposite of the romantic-emo-

tional concept of ruins accentuates their
intrinsic original architectural values. This
attitude represents aesthetically the most
surprising approach since one aspect of the
basic aesthetic ambiguity of ruins-half
work of art, half nature grown through cen-
turies-is almost entirely eliminated. What
then are those architectural values beyond
period-conditioned stylistic details? What
are the true gauges and standards of the
Stilwillen, elemental and independent of
any kind of ornamental decoration?
Functional values, of course, do not
count with ruins which by their very nature
cannot have any practical use. Details are
interesting, sometimes merely from an ar-
cheological viewpoint, sometimes aestheti-
cally. However, as one may remember, we
found details clearly enough depicted even
Fig. 11. Fra Francesco Colonna. in otherwise completely romantic interpre-
Hypnerotomachia Polifili.tations. Thus, there are actually left only
The Polyandrion. (Courtesy Cooper Union). the most basic values: proportions and the
interrelationship of space and volume. Are
they ever perceived and felt in ruins?
The answer definitely is "Yes." As little
as anyone in musical performances today is
able to perceive the true sound and color of
an orchestra as imagined by Vivaldi or
Mozart, so it is impossible for us to feel
proportions and the interrelationship of
space and volume in ruins the same way as
the architecture was planned by its builders.
Here lies the crucial aesthetic problem.
When people first became conscious of
ruins, they were aware only of those values
we have discussed before. Sometimes, how-
ever, the proportional and spatial qualities
of the original creation survived and were
not concealed or modified in spite of all
later visual changes and partial destruc-
tions.
The earliest examples are probably the
woodcuts in the Hypnerotomachia Polifili
by Fra Francesco Colonna, an Aldus Manu-
tius print of 1499, one of the most beautiful
Italian books. In this architectural-allegori-
cal novel by the much traveled Dominican
Fig. 12. Robert Adam. monk, Love-sometimes very realistically
depicted-and architecture are fused in his
View of the Inside of the Temple of Jupiter.
(Courtesy Cooper Union). fantastic dreams, doubtlessly with Freudian

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ii -- ---

Fig. 13. Giovanni Battista Piranesi. Villa of Maecenas. 1764.

(Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1941).

undertones. It is evident that the artist is and void, the basic architectural elements,
interested neither in archeological details can be encountered with the engravings of
nor in any kind of mood evoking visual the English architect Robert Adam (1728-
effects. He definitely wants to stimulate our 1792). Since his Ruins of the Palace of Dio-
spatial imagination and our interest in all cletian (1764) served primarily archeological
forms of spatial expanse in order to make uspurposes like so many works of his con-
feel specific harmonies created by purely temporary English colleagues his rendering
architectural means (fig. 11). The author ob-is less impressionistic than that of the im-
viously feels that the emotional reactions of aginative Frenchman, Hubert Robert. But
man to the impact of space are generally Adam is too much of an artist to be satisfied
more spontaneous and less intellectual than by the merely archeological intent of his
all romantic moods or any archeological in-engravings. Often his objective is also to
terest and therefore closer to the underlying catch the shape of the void, as exemplified
lyrical-erotic intent of the book. in the Temple of Jupiter in Spoleto (fig.
Nearly three centuries later, the foremen- 12). Of course, ruins whose ceilings are still
tioned Hubert Robert, for the larger public almost intact, lend themselves most easily to
the 18th-century painter of ruins, also the graphic projection of space.
created occasionally works in which he con- The same prevalence of spatial over ro-
ceived of ruins primarily for the sake of mantic impression holds true, for instance,
three-dimensional, architectural qualities. in Piranesi's etching of the interior of the
This is especially evident in his preparatory so-called Villa of Maecenas at Tivoli (1764)
wash drawings where the artist's inborn sus- (fig. 13) or of the Frigidarium of Hadrian's
ceptibility for pure space values shows Villa in Tivoli (1770). Also here the serious
strongest, not yet repressed by romanticizingdesire to concentrate on the spatial impact
tendencies. A similar sensitivity for spaceof architecture is unmistakable. Thus the

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 130 PAUL ZUCKER

greatest ofall masters

instances there may still exist anwho
organic ev
ject the visual and
structure with emotion
an inner unity which conveys
ruins shows himself here conscious of true the original architectural concept, in mass
architectural and spatial values. And he re-and voids and in relation to the surround-
captures them as well, as in other instances ing space. These values can be perceived
he brought out their romantic mood and and appreciated naturally only as a meta-
their factual forms. morphosis of the originally projected archi-
Briefly, the graphic art of these artists tecture. Definite structural organization
proves that they-and obviously many of and spatial relations, modified as they may
their contemporaries-were able to see be through destruction and age, still prevail
ruins still truly as architectural creations and are still-through the maze of time-
and to recognize the genuine aesthetic in- perceived as such. In other words, the splen-
tent of the architects. dor of the original work of architecture,
even if veiled by the inroads of growing na-
Summing up: Ruins are felt as archi-ture, by demolition and sometimes by adap-
tecture if they can be conceived as "Gestalt,"tations of later generations, has not been
as a specific structural configuration, as a lost and radiates still. As an English 18th-
totum divisum. And this overall-Gestalt is century writer remarks in a typically Eng-
not less real than the individual palpable lish understatement: "One suspects that
elements of architecture, the columns, the ruins sometimes suggest the sublimities
vaults, or the buttresses. The recognition which the complete intact building has not
of this configuration proves that in some attained."

The author likes to express his thanks to Drs.
Gert Muehsam and Richard P. Wunder, Cooper
Union, who were very helpful in collecting the
material, to the latter also for relevant hints from
his forthcoming publication on Gian Paolo Pannini.
The author is also grateful to the late Professor
Martin Soria, Michigan State University, who read
a paper on "Velazquez and Vedute Painting in
Spain and Italy 1620-1750" at the College Art As-
sociation Meeting, January 1961.
1 Rose Macauley, Pleasure of Ruins (London,
1953).
2 Axel Ludvig Romdahl, Notes on Monsu Desi-
derio (Goeteborg, 1944); Monsu Desiderio (Roma,
1950) (with bibliography); Sarasota, Florida, The
Ringling Museum of Art, "The Fantastic Visions
of Monsui Desiderio", 1950, 4; Marcel Brion,
"Monsu Desiderio, un peintre peu connu," Plaisir
de France (Paris) (Febr. 1954); Corrado Maltese,
"Monsu Desiderio, architetto di rovine," Scritti di
storia dell'arte in onore di Lionello Venturi (Roma,
1956), vol. 2.
3 Bibliografia della vita e delle opere di Salvatore
Rosa (Firenze, 1955). Art (London, 1935).
4Elizabeth Wheeler Manwaring, Italian Land- 14 Sir Reginald T. Blomfield, Six Architects (Lon-
scape in 18th century England, a Study chiefly don,
of the
1935).
Influence of Claude Lorrain and Salvator Rosa on
English Taste, 1700-1800 (Oxford U. P., 1925).
5 Paris, Louvre. Exposition Nicolas Poussin (Paris,
1959). Georg Kauffman, Poussin Studien (Berlin,
1960).
6Jakob Rosenberg, Jacob van Ruisdael (Berlin,
1928).
7 Benno Geiger, Saggio d'un Catalogo delle Pit-
ture di Alessandro Magnasco (Venice, 1945).
8 Gian Paolo Pannini, pittore, cinquanta tavole
con introd. di Leandro Ozzola (Turin, 1921). Robert
C. Smith, The Ruins of Rome. Catalogue of the Ex-
hibition of the U. of Pennsylvania Museum (Phila-
delphia, 1960).
9Paul Zucker, Die Theaterdekoration des Barock
(Berlin, 1925). Corrado Ricci, La Scenografia Ita-
liana (Milan, 1930).
10 Arthur Hind, Giov. Battista Piranesi; a critical
study (London, 1922). Henri Focillon, Giovanni
Battista Piranesi (Paris, 1928). A. Hyatt Mayor,
Giovanni Battista Piranesi (New York, 1952). Hylton
Thomas, The Drawings of Giov. Batt. Piranesi (Lon-
don, 1954).
11 Giuseppe Fiocco, Francesco Guardi (Florence,
1923). Francesco Guardi. Exhibition Springfield Mu-
seum of Fine Arts, Springfield, Mass., 1937 (intr.
John Lee Clarke, Jr.)
1Christopher Hussey, The Picturesque, Studies
in a Point of View (London-New York, 1927).
1I Marie-Louise Gotheim, A History of Garden
15 Duncan C. Tovey, The Letters of Thomas Gray
(London, 1912).

This content downloaded from

119.12.172.135 on Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:00:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms