OBEDIENCE – THE LAST PRINCIPLE, but certainly not the least.

Liberty, can never be a superior

principle, since that creates a room for misinterpretations as to how the principle should be
considered. If architecture is not combined with English law, then it’s a sheer waste of work, which
should not be. Architecture will grow weak, with time and can only be restored, until the first
principle of common sense is obeyed. Just like any other subject, architecture should also be taught
by making the students follow the style, that is accepted in their province.

Freedom and Expression-Maintaining Ruskin's primary focus on architecture, I'll ask what type of
freedom was being sought? Freedom from nature, such as the "law" of gravity and the properties of
materials? Well, certainly there was the urge to shun traditional materials in favor of industrially
produced ones such as steel and portland cement by the mid-19th century. However,
the rejection of traditional materials and corresponding embrace of industrial
materials along with the new forms made possible by them would only provide a
short lived illusion of freedom. The architects' exploration of form soon became
exhausted, of course being subject to the physical properties of the new materials.
The turn to industry for freedom undermined traditional manufacture and craft,
ironically diminishing the total available materials, means and methods available to
the field of architecture. The construction materials of industry have since been
increasingly standardized leading to further consolidation of production thru global
distribution. Admittedly, advances in engineering and now computer technology
occasionally generate a new material or method; however, this is often at great
economic and ecological cost. Ultimately there is today scant prospects to liberate
architecture from the ever limited material selection of industry . Arnolfini Wedding, Jan van Eyck

Style as a Linguistic Analogy-"Style" is a term that has been sullied, vilified really in contemporary
architectural practice. It has been ridiculed as affected, copyist, unoriginal, pastiche, kitsch and every
other derisive label that can be mustered. Yet, style is nothing more than a convention, architectural in
nature. Similarities can be drawn to language, a convention linguistic in nature. For example, out of
all the possible sounds within the range of what can be physically voiced and heard by human beings,
in the process of maturation we "copy" a few and discard the rest which constitute our language or
you could even say
Modern São Paulo, Brazil
our "style" of communication. That language is limited is uncontroversial.
That a fully developed language has an infinite range of expression is likewise
uncontroversial. The fact that many other people use the same communication style, "language" is the
social benefit that makes it extraordinarily beneficial. Our lives are
better because of it. Ruskin makes the case that the similar social
benefits hold true for our built environment, a culture adhering to an
architectural style.
What though about the charge of copyism, doesn't learning a style
inhibit creativity, an important personal development for the artist or
architect? Ruskin responds to this reasoning so, "When we begin to
teach children writing, we force them to absolute copyism, and
require absolute accuracy in the formation of the letters; as they
obtain command of the received modes of literal expression, we
cannot prevent their falling into such variations as are consistent with their feeling, their
circumstances, or their characters. So, when a boy is first taught to write Latin, an authority is
required of him for every expression he uses; as he becomes master of the language he may take
a license, and feel his right to do so without any authority." This is easily recognized as the initial
path to literacy that most of us have undertaken. Upon mastery of the alphabet, script, grammar and
syntax of a language we embark upon composition and sometimes even poetry where liberties with
the language and personal expression come to the fore, again as masters of the style. Explaining the
correlation to architectural style Ruskin proceeds, "Originality in expression does not depend on
invention of new words; nor originality in poetry on invention of new measures...a man who has
the gift, will take up any style that is going, the style of his day, and will work in that, and be
great in that, and make everything that he does in it look as fresh as if every thought of it had
just come down from heaven."

Conclusion; We here draw to a close a consideration of the seventh and final of John Ruskin's
"Lamps" or essays on architecture. Living from the dawn through the maturation of the Industrial
Revolution he witnessed both sides of the chasm between a traditional versus an industrial economy,
with its severe impacts on architecture and human culture more generally. He advocated for
architecture not to forego its ethical, moral obligation to the social order as guardians, trustees of the
build environment. Concerning craftsmen, we've never had a more eloquent and passionate advocate,
zealously publicizing our invaluable contribution to the civic realm.
“Nature is painting for us, day after day, pictures of infinite beauty if only we have the eyes to
see them.” - John Ruskin