An Analysis of Marc-Antoine Laugier’s Theory of Architecture through Visual Portrayal

Carson Luhr

ARC-2032-02: Hist Architecture after 1400

Dr. Watson

February 21, 2023

 Luhr 1

Image by Charles Eisen, drawn for the second edition of Laugier’s Essay on Architecture

(Essai sur l'Architecture), 1755

 Luhr 2

Architecture, by nature, requires the use of visual portrayal; without it, there is no

feasible manner in which a building is able to be realized. However, this need not solely be the

case in regards to construction drawings such as elevations, sections, and plans. An architectural

drawing also has the potential to portray philosophical ideas without the use of imagery

synonymous with a “work of architecture.” A prime example of this can be found in the

frontispiece done by Charles Eisen for the second edition of Marc-Antoine Laugier’s Essay on

Architecture (Essai sur l’Architecture) in 1755. As revealed by the date this drawing was

completed, it is known that the philosophies presented in this work stem from the Enlightenment

period; synonymous with the popularization of rational, evidence-based thought as well as a

questioning of absolute monarchical authority. Through the incorporation of this context into the

lens used to analyze this piece of artwork, one is able to find a multitude of symbolic messages

that pertain to not only Laugier’s theory of architecture, but also the centuries of architectural

history prior to the creation of this image.

In order to properly assess the above image, it is vital that it be broken down into a few

key images within itself. These three key symbols can be reasonably concluded to be the “rustic

hut” constructed of branches and trees, the woman sitting upon rubble, and the small child.

Given this, we shall begin with the “rustic hut.” The term “rustic hut” is used due to its inclusion

by Laugier, who defines it over the course of a lengthy and diligent description. However, for the

sake of clarity, that full description will not be included, but rather a synopsis of Laugier’s

message. The rustic hut is constructed by a man seeking shelter, using branches he finds in order

to construct a dwelling that is composed of four, sturdy supports as well as a roof that meets at a

point (in a triangular form) and does not allow for sunlight or rain to breach it; but he will then
 Luhr 3

also fill the space between the supports to be better sheltered.1 Given this information, it is clear

that the structure contained within the above image is that of the rustic hut; constructed in its

most simple state so that one is able to find shelter beneath its covering. However, in the context

of this image, it is not the duty of the rustic hut to have much symbolic meaning within itself, but

rather it is to act as a reference so that the rest of the image’s message may be cohesive.

Now that the significance of the rustic hut has been established, it is now imperative to

analyze the purpose of the other images within the drawing. One may suggest that the next image

that need be analyzed would be that of the woman sitting upon the debris in the bottom right

corner. However, the symbolic purpose of this woman cannot be fully understood unless

combined with the symbolic significance of the child located upon the left side of the page.

These two questionable images work in unison so that an overall message may be displayed. The

relationship between these two images then also goes on to play off of the rustic hut in the

background; working in a masterful cohesion so that an overall theme may be interpretable.

Knowing this, it is logical to state that the woman represents architecture, a being become

personified, and then the child represents that of mankind, or more specifically architects. Now, I

acknowledge that this claim appears to be far-fetched, as without support it seems as nothing

more than a stretch. Yet, when we look to Laugier’s theory of architecture, the message becomes

blatantly clear. A statement from Laugier’s Essay of Architecture that begins to summarize his

theory is as follows: “...in an architectural order only the column, the entablature and the

pediment may form an essential part of its composition. If each of these parts is suitably placed

and suitably formed, nothing else need be added to make the work perfect.”2 Perhaps the most

1
Marc-Antoine Laugier, “Essay on Architecture” [1755], in ArchitecturalTheory: Volume I—An Anthology from Vitruvius to 1870, ed. Harry
FrancisMallgrave (Malden: Blackwell, 2006), 141–144

2
Laugier, Essay on Architecture,143.
 Luhr 4

clearly communicated element of this definition of architecture is that of simplicity. Simplicity in

the sense that architecture need not be overly complex, as it stems from the aforementioned

“rustic hut.” Furthermore, it is vital to place this information within a historical context, as

architectural theories had been present for milenia prior to this authorization. However, this

historical context is rather one-sided, as the majority of architectural theories prior to Laugier’s

all called back upon the writing of Vitruvius; yet this is not the case for Laugier. Instead, Laugier

chose to actually oppose that perspective, choosing instead to focus upon simplicity rather than

complex ornamentation and distinct law as other “Vitruvian” architects did. Is this a direct

representation of the influence of Enlightenment principles upon Laugier’s own principles? It

very well could be. Thus it can reasonably be assumed that Laugier arrived upon this theory of

architecture from a basis of opposition to previous historical architectural philosophies. Now

back to the symbolism embodied within the woman and small child. It is evident that the woman

is sitting upon the debris of what is deemed to be classical architecture (the style directly

influenced by Vitruvian principles); as she sits upon this rubble, she points the child in the

direction of the rustic hut. As if she is redirecting the child to a path of simplicity rather than

complexity. Given this, that is why it is another reasonable conclusion that the child represents

humanity, or more specifically, architects. Fueled by enlightened philosophies, as shown by the

flame above the child’s head, humanity is being shown to return to the simple origins of

architecture (by architecture herself). Perhaps we are being represented by a small child due to

the lack of knowledge a small child possesses; making a statement about humanity’s ignorance in

the grand scheme of the earth. Or perhaps it also is made to represent that we are to be easily

influenced? As a small child is bound to trust this wise looking woman and will thus follow her

guidance.
 Luhr 5

Overall, what we are witnessing in the frontispiece drawing of Lauiger’s Essay on

Architecture is the personification of his architectural theory. As Laugier deems it necessary that

we (humanity) return to the simplistic origins of architecture (the rustic hut) and that all other

additions made upon this simple formula are not required, or even faults. Through the use of

enlightenment imagery as well as hidden symbolism, Charles Eisen communicates the

fundamental definition of Marc-Antoine Laugier’s definition of architecture through visual

media.