Ameri_2005_On the Border of the Beautiful

7/30/2019 Ameri_2005_On the Border of the Beautiful

1/37

ON THE BORDER OF THE BEAUTIFUL

Amir H. Ameri

Architectural Theory Review, Sydney, vol. 10, no. 2, 2005, 12-33


2/37

Ameri 2

Tereisamarkedlikenessbetweenthevirtuesofmanandtheenlightenmentoftheglobeheinhabits-thesamediminishinggradationinvigoruptothelimitsoftheirdomains,thesame

essentialseparationfromtheircontraries-thesametwilightatthemeetingofthetwo:asomethingwiderbeltthanthelinewheretheworldrollsintonight,thatstrangetwilightofvirtues;thatduskydebatableland,whereinzealbecomesimpatience,andtemperancebecomesseverity,andjusticebecomescruelty,andfaithsuperstition,andeachandallvanishintogloom.

Nevertheless, with the greater number of them, thoughtheirdimnessincreasesgradually,wemaymarkthemoment

oftheirsunset;and,happily,mayturntheshadowbackbythewaybywhichithadgonedown....(Ruskin1849:34).

I.

At the outset of the book Pioneers of Modern Design (1936),

Nikolasu Pevsner sums up the basic doctrine of nineteenth-centuryarchitecturaltheoryinwhathassincebecomeawellknownquotefrom

RuskinsLecturesonArchitectureandPainting(1854).Ornamentation,

Pevsner quotes Ruskin saying, is the principal part of architecture

(Pevsner1986(1936):19).Next,Pevsnergoesontoshowthecomic,and

totheproponentsoftheModernMovement,thetragicconsequenceof

theapplicationofthissurprisingprincipletoarchitecturalpracticeatthe

endofthelastcentury.TissurprisingstatementhassincebecomeanemblemforallthattheproponentsoftheModernMovementbelievedtobe

wrongwitharchitecturaldesignaroundtheturnofthecentury,andmuch

ofwhattheyhopedtore-forminit.

o most theoreticians, architects, and historians of the twentieth

centurytheabsurdityandthecomedyinpronouncingornamentationthe

principalpartofarchitectureremainedself-evidentuntilRobertVenturiand Denise Scott Browns daring dictum in the concluding sentence to

theirbookLearningfromLasVegas(1972).Itisnowtime,Venturi

andScottBrowncontended,toreevaluatetheonce-horrifyingstatement

ofJohn Ruskin that architecture is the decorationofconstruction. o


3/37

Ameri 3

this once-horrifying statement, the authors immediately append Pugins

warningthatitisallrighttodecorateconstructionbutneverconstruct

decoration(Venturi,ScottBrown1972:163).

Tepermissiveandcelebratorysentimenttowardornamentthatwas

rst(re)publicizedbyVenturiandScottBrown,wassoonampliedbya

sizablenumberofauthorsandarchitects,tosomeofwhomtherenewed

sentimentwastheclearindicatorofthedawnofanewageinarchitectural

design.1Ornament,itwascontended,anathematoModernistdesign-is

backinstyle.Althoughlongbanishedasaestheticallyretarded,morally

reprehensible, or simply the aictionofpeople who dont know better,ornamentissuddenlyreappearinginsomeofthemostchallengingnew

architecture,interiordesign,furniture,craftsandeventhenearts(Jensen

andConway1982:1). Ornamentationtodayisaradicalact,quitethe

oppositeoftheconservativeactthatithasbeenformostofthiscentury

(Ibid.).

Despiteachangedsentimenttowardornament,Ruskinssurprisingstatement remains, nevertheless, as it has been for years, a source of

discomfort,ifnotembarrassment,tomanyscholarsofRuskinsaesthetic

theories.SomescholarsstayclearofRuskinsblusteringpronouncements

onornamentation by focusingonhis substantialworkonpainting and

sculpture, in particular, the ve volumes of Modern Painters (1843-

1860),wherethequestionofornamentationdoesnotgureprominent.

AcaseinpointisGeorgeP.Landowseminentstudy:TeAestheticand

CriticalTeoriesofJohnRuskin(1971).2Otherscholars,notinnocent

ofaModernistpredisposition,chastiseRuskinforhispreoccupationwith

detail, ... whichconstitutedhis entire emphasis inarchitecture and for

beingsopreoccupiedwitharchitecturalsurfacesthathedidnotconcern

himself with the overall plan of a building, and did not conceive of

buildingsasenclosingandmoldingspaces;apparently,hedidnotevensee

structuresasoccupyingspace,verticallyorhorizontally(Garrigan1973:

49,62).3

Even John Unrauwho,amongahand-full ofRuskinscholars, does

notdismisshisarchitecturaltheoriesonaccountofhisblusterystatements


4/37

Ameri 4

onornamentation,andissharplycriticalofthosewhodo,ndsRuskins

proclamations to be at best problematic. He chastises Ruskin as well,

though on account of making it all too easy for subsequent writers to

dismiss his architectural thought without making the strenuous eort

necessarytoobtainafullandbalancedreadingofhisworkonthesubject

(Unrau,1978:13).Certainly,Unraucontends,itwassillyofRuskin

tosumuphiswide-rangingandsubtleanalysisofarchitecturalornament

withadogmaticcatch-crythathaseectivelyrepelledgenerationsofreaders

frommakingaseriousattempttondoutiftherewasanysubstancebehind

thebluster(Ibid:65).FromaprovocativestatementasOrnamentationis the principal part ofarchitecture, Unrau contends, It isperhapsno

wonderthatpotentialreadersofRuskinshouldconcludethatthereisno

pointinpursuing,throughallthosefatredvolumes,theviewsofaman

whocouldsaysuchapparentlynonsensicalthings(Ibid:13).

Tesentence-Ornamentationistheprincipalpartofarchitecture

-hasbeenmadetoassumetheburdenofmoreresponsibilityandblame

through time than any one sentence could readily be make to assume.

Emblematically, if not directly, it is held accountable for the state of

architecturalpracticeattheendofthelastcenturyfromoneendofthe

spectrum,tothepresentstateofRuskinianscholarship,ontheotherend

ofthespectrum.

Self-evidentastheproblemwiththissentencemaybe,whatIwishto

pursueinsomedetailisthatwhichissilly,preposterous,nonsensical,absurd,

orgenerallywrongwiththisproclamation.Exactly,Iwishtoask,whatin

thissentencehaspropelledittoapositionofsuchprominentinfamy?

Tewordsthemselves-ornamentation,principalpart,andarchitecture

-areclearlynotoutofplaceorimproperinthecontextofanydiscussion

on building. We nd them variously stated in many a discourse on

architecturalornamentationsincetheRenaissance.4Toughthewordsarenotoutofplaceinthewidercontext,theproblemwiththesentenceis,

however,attheriskofstatingtheobvious,aproblemofplaceorplacement.

Teproblemhastodowiththeexactplacementofornamentwithrespect

toarchitecture:interiororanterior,centralorperipheral.Tenonsensein


5/37

Ameri 5

Ruskinssentenceisinitssurprisingequationoftheornamentalwiththe

principalpartofarchitecture.Tesillinessandtheabsurdityofitresides

intheequationoftheperipheralwiththecentral,thesubsidiarywiththe

cardinal,thesupplementalwiththepivotal.Teornamentinthissentence

isplacedoutofplace.Teplaceofornament-ifithasone-isnotaprincipal

placeinarchitecture.Tismuchisevidenttoboththeproponentsand

theopponentsofRuskinalike,asevidencedbytheirreactiontoRuskins

displacement.Neithertreatsthissentence,however,itisimportanttonote,

asasimpleerrorinjudgment.Whatfailsinthissentenceisnotthefaculty

of judgment,but theplace of architecture as distinct from the place ofornament. Teproblem,withoutasyetreadingtoomuchintoit, isthe

realizationofacertaindependenceonplaceandplacement.

TenonsenseinRuskinssentencewasselfevidenttotheproponentsof

ModernismfromavantagepointthatisperhapsbestexaggeratedbyAdolf

Loosswellknownequationofornamentationtocrime(Conrads1980:

19).Infact,theuniqueidentityoftheModernmovementwasconstituted,

in part, by opposing ornamentation, and placing it rmly outside of

architecture, i.e.,bycarefully distinguishingand separating the essential

fromtheinconsequential,theprincipalfromtheperipheral,orarchitecture

fromtheornamental.ModernArchitecture,asLeCorbusierputit,is

everything-butisnotthedecorativearts(LeCorbusier1986(1923):91).

TeotherwiseallencompassingModernarchitectureoccupiesaplacethatis

madedistinctbyvirtueofbeinglocatedagainstandoutsideornamentationandthedecorativearts.

Te proponents of the renewed permissive sentiment toward

ornamentation have done no less, in a manner, than their Modernist

counterparts in dening their own unique identity. Tey too dene

the identity of their new architecture by dening its place with respect

to ornamentation. In this instance the place is one that is inclusive of

ornamentation,thoughnotanornamentationthatisfreetoroamaround,

orassumeacentralposition,butoneproperlyplaced,administered,and

controlled.ShouldwerecallVenturiandScottBrownswarning,itisonce

again,allrighttodecorateconstruction,butneverconstructdecoration.


6/37

Ameri 6

BrentBrolinexpressesmuchthesamesentimentinhisFlightofFancy:

theBanishmentandReturnofOrnament(1985)whenhetellusthatAs

ornamentreturns:

Temostobviouspitfall...isthatdesignerswilllapseintodoingornament for ornaments sake. Tat would leave usonlyslightlybetterothanwhentheyindulgedinornamentfornoornamentssake.Tepromiseofpostmodernismwouldthenfade,tobecomejustanotherallegedstyleofthetimes,tobefollowed,atsomelaterdate,bythenextinline(Brolin1985:282).

As the gates were opened once again to allow ornament back in

architecture,itappearednecessarytosubjectthepassagetoconditionand

carefulsupervision-less,ofcourse,architecturesuersthetestoftime.

Ornament, Ruskins assertion not withstanding, cannot be allowed to

assumeaprincipalposition.ogiveornamentaprincipalposition,i.e.,

toconstructdecorationorornamentforornamentssake,istantamount

tocreatinganarchitecturethatistiedtothetimesand fadingawayin

time,asopposedtoonetranscendingtime.Betweentheenduringand

theephemeralarchitecture,liesthedeterminationoftheplaceofornament

withinarchitecture.Solongasornamentservessomethingotherthanitself,

solongasornamentisnottheendbutthemeanstoanend,thearchitecture

that grants it passage endures. Otherwise the architecture that allows

ornamentinforitsownsakeinevitablyfadesaway,forsakingitsplacetothe

nextinline.Lesspostmodernismloseitspromiseoftranscendingtimes.

Given the purported consequence of misplacing ornament, in one

instance inside architecture as opposed to outside it, in the other, in a

principal,asopposedtoasubordinatepositionwithrespecttoarchitecture,

thereasonforthestrongreactiontoRuskinspronouncementmaybecome

moreevident.Inthiscontext,perhapsallthatcanbesaid,andallthat

hasbeensaidinRuskinsdefense,isthathereallydidnotmeanit.John

Unrau,tryingtopointouttheseriousintentionsbehindRuskinsverbalshock tactics, informs us that Ruskins ideas have often been grossly

misinterpreted, mainly because it has seldom been noticed that Ruskin

usuallyimpliesamuchwiderdenitionofornamentthanthemodern

reader ... tends toexpect (Unrau1978:65-66). According toRuskin,


7/37

Ameri 7

Unrau contends, depending upon the distance of the viewer from the

building,almostanymajorsubdivisionofstructuremightbeconsidered

ornamental(Ibid:67).Ruskinwould,wearetold,regardasornamental

allelementsofthebuildingwhich,atthespecicdistancefromwhichone

isviewingit,aretreatedinsuchawaythattheycontributetoitsaesthetic

articulation(Ibid).Furthermore,Ruskin,wearetold,forcefullyarmed

thenecessityofconsideringdetailassubordinatetothevisualwhole,and

certainthatornamentlackingsubordinationtototaldesignwillinevitably

leadtoaestheticdisaster(Ibid.).Inotherwords,verbalshocktacticsaside,

evenRuskin,theconsummateornamentalistbysomeaccounts,didnotfailtoobservethenecessityofmarkingtheplaceofornamentclearlyand

decidedlyinasubordinateposition.

Leavingasideforthemomentthequestionofanactualorassumed

disagreementbetweenRuskinandnumerousotherwritersonarchitectural

ornamentationovertheplaceofornamentinarchitecture,thereappears

tobeaclearagreementbetweenRuskinandthemajorityofhispeerssince

the Renaissance, on the devastating consequence of losing control over

ornamentation.Whatitisthatwemustnotlosecontrolover,however,no

onehasasyetidentiedwithequalforceandclarityasthedirenessofthe

consequenceitself.

Althoughthere isnoarchitecturalelementorgroupofelementsthat

canbelabeledanornament,orforthatmatternot,althoughitisvirtually

impossible to point to any architectural feature, in and of itself, as an

ornamentalfeature,ornot,nevertheless,virtuallyeveryauthoraddressing

thesubjectofornamentationappearstoassume,asIhavethusfar,thatthere

issuchathingasornamentandthatitisanadditionoranappendageto

thebodyoftheedice.Teconsensusamongtheauthorsthataddressthe

subjectisthatornamentissomethingextraanddetachable.Itis,asRuskin

putitwithinlimitsthatweshallhavetodiscusslater,allthatmaybetaken

awayfromthebuilding,andnothurtit(SV:400).Tis issurprisingly

similar, to say the least, to Laugiers denition of ornament as all that

onecanmakeuseoforcutoutwithouttheessenceofthearchitectural

Orderbeingaected,i.e.,allthatcanbeadmittedorsuppressedwithout


8/37

Ameri 8

changingthethingfundamentally,(Laugier1977(1756):152).Alberti,in

turn,hadearlierdenedornamenttobeakindofanauxiliarybrightness

and improvement [complement] to beauty, i.e., somewhat added or

fastenedon,ratherthanproperandinnate(Alberti1966(c.1450):113).5

Itwas,indueturn,preciselyassomethingaddedorfastenedonthatthe

proponentsofModernarchitecturedeprecatedornamentation;andintheir

turn,thecontemporaryopponentsallowedittoreturnasallthatisadded

todecorateconstruction,i.e.,assomethingotherthanstructural,other

thanfunctional;assomethingapplied(Jensen,et.al.1982:7).

Given the prevalent denition ofornamentation as addition, extra,other, auxiliary, it follows, as Ruskin purportedly assumed, that every

architectural element couldbeanornamental element depending on its

placeandthecircumstancesofitsplacement.6Everyarchitecturalelement

canbecomeanornamentalelementsolongasitisattachedtoanedice

andyetitappearsdetachablefromit,i.e.,solongasfromitsallottedplace

itappearsasthoughitcanbedisplaced.However,theornamentalelement,

itisimportanttonote,isnotsimplyanexternaloradisplacedelement.It

isnotdetached.Ifitissimplyexternalordetached,theelementinquestion

isnotorisnolongerornamental.obeornamentalanelementmustbe

attached,thoughdetachable.Itmustaddtothebody,butnotsubmerge

init.Itmustbebothanadditionandadditional.Itmustbeatoncea

partandapart.Itmustbeinplaceandyetoutofplace.Myintenthere

isnottospeakinriddles.Tedicultyinarticulatingwhatornamentis, i.e., locating its place and identifying its boundaries, is to an extent

involuntary,becauseornament,inasense,hasnodecidableplace.Tisis

becauseornamentisnotsomuchanelement,asitisacertainplacement

ofanyelementwithrespecttoanotherelement-eachofwhichappearsas

whatitisinreferencetotheother.Temeasureofornamentisneveritself.

Teornamentalisalwaysmeasuredagainstanotherbodyasanappendage

andasubordinateelement.Ornamentdoesnothaveanidentityoraplace

ofitsown,becauseitisfundamentallyacreatureofplacement.Itdoesnot

designatesomuchathing,asaspecicrelationshipbetweentwothings.

If,ontheotherhand,theplaceofornamenthasbeenofconsiderable


9/37

Ameri 9

concern,ifwendvirtuallyeverymajormovementinarchitecturesince

theRenaissancedeneitsuniqueidentitybyassumingadistinctposture

on ornamentation - internal or external, principal or peripheral - if

losing control over ornamentation is repeatedly purported to have dire

consequences,thisisinpartbecauseitisbydeningandidentifyingthe

ornamental,byseparatingtheadditivefromtheessentialthattheprincipal

and the peripheral are made to appear as such. o lose control of the

ornamentalisinamannertantamounttolosingsightoftheessential.Tis

isanotherreasonwhyRuskinsproclamationhasappearedsoproblematic.

Atfacevalue, itappears toconfoundtwothingswhoseidentitydependsontheirdistinction:thearchitectureandtheornamentation.Ornament

cannotbeprincipal,becauseornamentisjudgedagainsttheprincipal.

Tereisyetanotherdimensiontotheproblem.Ruskinselevationof

ornamentationtoaprincipalpartofarchitecturecreatesacrisisofidentity

forthelatter.Architectureis,accordingtoapervasiveWesterntradition,

what transcends building. For instance, when a thing responds to a

need,LeCorbusierproclaimed,itisnotbeautiful;....Architecturehas

anothermeaningandotherendstopursuethanshowingconstructionand

respondingtoneeds(LeCorbusier1960:102-103).FromLeCorbusiers

text we may trace our steps through virtually every major, inuential

treatiseonarchitecturebacktoVirtruviustriadcommodity,Firmness,and

Delight,orforwardtoVenturiandScottBrownsreiterationofit,tond

ineachinstancethesameemphasisonthebeautifulastheconditionoftheelevationofbuildingtoarchitecture.Withoutdelight,thereisbuilding,

butnotarchitecture.Architectureissynonymouswithaestheticsandbeauty.

Alberti, for instance, ina longlineofWesternarchitecturaltheoreticians

whosecollectivesinglemindednessonthesubjectisremarkable,reasoned

thatthehavingsatisednecessityisaverysmallmatter,andthehaving

provided for conveniencyaords nomanner ofpleasure, whereyou are

shockedbythedeformityofthework. 7Terefore,heconcluded:your

wholecare,diligenceandexpense...shouldalltendtothis,thatwhatever

youbuildmaybenotonlyusefulandconvenient,butalso...delightfulto

thesight(Alberti1966(1450):113)8


10/37

Ameri 10

Over time, the proposed ways and mean of rendering a building

beautifulhavebeenasdiverseandvariedastheculturalandparadigmshifts

theyreect.Nevertheless,contentiousandheatedasthedebatesoftenhave

been,thedisagreementshavecenteredonhowtomakebuildingsbeautiful,

notwhetherorexactlywhyonemust.Also,thereisremarkableconsensus,

inprinciple,onwhatconstitutesthebeautiful.Albertisetthefoundation

whenheproposedto followtheopinionofSocratesanddenebeauty

to be a harmony of all the parts, in whatever subject it appears, tted

together with such proportion and connection, that nothing could be

added,diminishedoraltered,butfortheworse(Ibid:113).Tebeautifulis,inprinciple,self-sucient,andcomplete.Itgathersitselfallinone

place.Itsborderlinescannotbebreached.Itisneithermissingapartto

requireaddition,nordoesithaveanythingextratorequiresubtraction.

Attachmenttoordetachmentfromthebeautifulis tantamounttoitsloss

anddestruction.

Albertis denition of the beautiful has been persistently upheld,

though only in principle, by the succeeding generation of architectural

theoreticians. It isprecisely inreference tothispervasiveunderstanding

ofthebeautifulthatthequestionofornamentationhasassumedacritical

dimensionintheoreticaldiscourseonarchitecture.Itisalsopreciselyin

referencetothisdenitionthatRuskinsequationofornamentationtoa

principal part ofarchitecturehas beenviewedasabsurdly comicand/or

sadlytragic.

If the aim, as Le Corbusier put it, that constitutes and separates

architecturefrommerebuildingisthebeautiful,i.e.,whatcanacceptneither

additionnorsubtractionwithoutloss,thequestionoftheplaceandrole

ofornamentation,whichisneithersimplyattachednorsimplydetached,

presents considerable diculty. If allowed as addition, it inevitably

challengestheself-suciencyofthebeautifulandassucharchitectureitself.

Ifdisjoinedandseparated,ornament,nevertheless,raisesquestionsaboutits

presenceandcontribution.Tepathofmarginalizationand/orexclusionof

ornamentation,followedbythetheoreticiansoftheenlightenmentbefore

RuskinandthetheoreticiansoftheModernmovementafterhim,presents


11/37

Ameri 11

itsowndistinctdilemmasandcontradictions.Condemningandexcluding

ornamentfromarchitecture,ModernArchitectswere,RobertVenturiand

DeniseScottBrownpointoutintheirscathingcritiqueoftheModern

Movement, only denying in theory what they were doing in practice

(Venturi,ScottBrown1972:114).ryingtosetasideornamentation,they

merelysubstitutedonesetofornamentsforanother.Placingornament

inamarginalpositionasallthatcanbeadmittedorsuppressedwithout

changing the thing fundamentally, (Laugier 1977(1756): 152) or as

somewhataddedorfastenedon,ratherthanproperandinnate(Alberti

1966(c.1450):113)isneitherafundamentallydierentpositionnordoesitfairbetter.Elsewhere,Ihavediscussed theproblemsandparadoxesof

ornamentations marginalization and exclusion.9 In contrast, Ruskin

proposed to pursue, mindful of his predecessors diculties, a dierent

path:thepathofinclusionand,ineect,domesticationofornamentation.

TisisthepathIwishtocriticallyanalyzeintheremainderofthiswork.

Myintentisnottoarguefororagainstornament.Iamnotcertainone

is aorded this choice, even though one may readily and customarily

exercise it. Rather,Iaminterestedinthe reasonsfor thepreoccupation

withornamentation.Tequestionformeiswhyornament,whichisnot

evenathing,butarolethatcanbeassumedbyvirtuallyanything,has

managedtostirsomuchpassionandcontroversyintheoreticaldiscourse

onarchitecture.Whyplacingornament,placingandpositioningoneself

withrespecttoit,hasbeenofcentralconcernwithinthisdiscourse,sofar

sketchedwithbroadstokes?

II.

Tefactis,Ruskinboldlynotes,bywayofclarifyinghispositionon

ornamentation:

I never met with the architect yet who did not thinkornamentmeantathingtobeboughtinashopandpinnedon, or left o, at architectural toilets, as the fancy seizedthem,thinkinglittlemorethanmanywomendooftheotherkindofornament-theonlytruekind,-St.Peterskind,-Not that outward adorning,but the inner -of theheart.


12/37

Ameri 12

I do not mean that architects cannot conceive this betterornament, but they do not understand that it is the onlyornament;thatallarchitecturalornamentisthis,andnothing

butthis;thatanoblebuildingneverhasanyextraneousorsuperuousornaments;thatallitspartsarenecessarytoitsloveliness,andthatnosingleatomofthemcouldberemovedwithoutharm to its life,And Iuse thewordsornamentand beauty interchangeably, in order that architects mayunderstandthis:Iassumethattheirbuildingistobeaperfectcreature capable of nothing less than it has, and needingnothingmore. Itmay,indeed,receiveadditionaldecorationafterwards,exactlyasawomanmaygracefullyputabraceletonherarms,orsetaowerinherhair:butthatadditionaldecorationisnotthearchitecture.Itisofcurtains,pictures,statues,thingsthatmaybetakenawayfromthebuilding,andnothurtit.Whathasthearchitecttodowiththese?Hehasonlytodowithwhatispartofthebuildingitself,thatis tosay,itsowninherentbeauty.(StonesofVenice,v.1,p.400)

Ruskin keepswellwithin the bounds of tradition inassuming that

architecturesobjectiveisaperfectcreaturethatrequiresnothinglessthanithasandisabletoacceptnothingmorewithoutloss,i.e.,withoutceasingto

beautonomousandsingular.However,refutingthetraditionaldistinction

between beauty and ornament as a misunderstanding of the limits of

the architectures terrain, i.e., of what falls inside or outside it, Ruskin

eectively re-positions or re-draws these limits to incorporate ornament

as an interchangeable word for beauty. He re-proposes the distinction

betweenthingsthatfallinsideoroutsidearchitectureasoneappropriately

madebetweentwokindsofornament:theinnerortheonlytruekindthat

isconducivetobeautyandtheoutwardoruntruekindthatisextraneous

anddispensable.Inotherwords,despiteitsinternalizationasanotherword

forbeauty,acertainkindofornamentremainsextraneous.Itisofcurtains,

pictures,statues,orelsethingsthatmaybetakenawayfromthebuilding

andnothurtit,i.e.,thingsthatfalloutsideandareassuchunrelatedandunnecessarytoarchitecturesinnerloveliness.Curtains,paintings,statues

andothersimilarornamentsarenot,however,asweshallseelater,inherently

extraneous.Withinlimitsthatareyettobedened,placedordrawn,each

couldbeaninnerornamentandintegraltothebeautyofthebuilding.


13/37

Ameri 13

odenetheselimitsandclearlydrawthelineseparatingtheinnerfrom

theouter,the insidefromtheoutsideofarchitecture-weneedrstand

foremosttodetermineamatterofveryessentialimportance,namely,what

isorisnotornament(SevenLampsofArchitecture,p.102)whichisalso

toaskanddeterminewhatisorisnotbeauty,andthereforewhatisoris

notarchitecture.

Art, generally, as such, Ruskin tells us, withall its technicalities,

diculties, and particular ends, is nothing but a noble and expressive

language, invaluable as the vehicle of thought, but by itself nothing

(Modern Painters, vol.1, p.8). Assuming a distinct hierarchy betweenlanguageandthought,orelsethetechnicalortheconstructiveand

thereectiveortheimaginative,inallourspeculationsonart-Ruskin

goesontosetthegroundrule-languageisthustobedistinguished,and

heldsubordinateto,thatwhichitconveys(Ibid).Tisimpliesthatinthe

outsetofallinquiryintothesubjectofarchitecture,itisverynecessaryto

distinguishcarefullybetweenarchitectureandbuilding(SevenLampsof

Architecture,pp.15-16).Itisnecessarytodistinguishbetweenthehigher

-thereective-tobeveneratedandthelower-theconstructive-tobe

heldsubordinatefortheriskofinterferenceorprevalence.Building

merelybythestabilityofwhatiterectsoritstnesstoreceiveandcontain

withcomfortarequirednumberofpeopleshouldnotbeconfusedwith

architecture.TenameArchitecturemustbeconnedtothatartwhich

hasbuildingasconditionofitsworkingandasconditionofelevationto art impresses on its form certain characters venerable or beautiful,

but otherwise unnecessary, i.e., unnecessary or useless, in the well

understoodandusualsense,asmeaning,inapplicabletotheserviceofthe

Body(StonesofVenice,V.1,P.399).Tisunnecessaryoruselessaddition

istheornamentationwithoutwhichthereisnoarchitecture.Hence,the

interdependenceand/ortheinterchangeabilityofthewords,architecture,

beautyandornament.

Ruskinsdistinctionbetweenarchitectureandbuilding,adamantasit

is,hasmanyprecedents.Whatisdierenthereistheradicalnatureofthe

dividebetweenarchitectureandbuilding,andRuskinsexclusivefocuson


14/37

Ameri 14

thoseideasorcharactersvenerableorbeautiful,butotherwiseunnecessary

thattransformbuildingsintoarchitecture.Hedividestheseintotwobroad

classes:theonecharacterizedbyanexceedingpreciousnessanddelicacy,to

whichwerecurwithasenseofaectionateadmiration;andtheotherby

asevere,andinmanycases,mysterious,majesty,whichwerememberwith

anundiminishedsenseofawe,likethatfeltatthepresenceandoperation

ofsomegreatSpiritualPower(SevenLampsofArchitecture,p.70).Te

dierencebetweenthesetwoimpressions,Ruskinwarnsus:

isnotmerelythatwhichthereisinnaturebetweenthingsbeautifulandsublime.Itis,also,thedierencebetweenwhatisderivative and original in mans work; for whatever is inarchitecturefairorbeautifulisimitatedfromnaturalforms;andwhatisnotsoderived,butdependsforitsdignityuponarrangement and government received from human mind,becomestheexpressionofthepowerthatmind,andreceivesasublimityhighinproportiontothepowerexpressed.Allbuildings, therefore, shows man either as gathering orgoverning:andthesecretsofhissuccessarehisknowingwhat

togather,andhowtorule.TesearethetwogreatintellectualLampsofArchitecture;theoneconsistinginajustandhumblevenerationfortheworksofGodupontheearth,andtheotherinanunderstandingofthedominionoverthoseworkswhichhasbeenvestedinman.(SevenLampsofArchitecture,pp.70-71)

Tebeautifulthatisalwaysgatheredandimitatedwewillreturnto

thequestionofgovernancelater-hastodowithcertainoutwardqualities,

ofcertainformsandcolors,i.e.,ornaments,thesimplecontemplationof

whichgivesuspleasure.Tefeelingofmankindonthissubject,bythe

simplewilloftheDeity,isuniversalandinstinctive(ModernPainters,

vol.1,p.27).Hence,Ruskintellsusthatthe impressionsofbeautyare

neithersensualnorintellectual,butmoral(ModernPainters,vol.1,p.11).

Tey aremoralbecause,thesecommon andgeneral sourcesofpleasure

are,Ibelieve,acertainseal,orimpressofdivineworkandcharacter,upon

whateverGodhaswroughtinalltheworld(ModernPainters,vol.1,p.24).

Terefore,men,despisingallthatisnotofGod,unlessremindingitof

God(ModernPainter,vol.1p.17),aretoattemptthenoblerenderingof

imagesofbeauty,derivedchieyfromtheexternalappearanceoforganic


15/37

Ameri 15

natureinallthevisualarts,inclusiveofarchitecture.

Terefore, Ruskin goes on to conclude, the proper material of

ornamentwillbewhateverGodhascreated;anditspropertreatment,thatwhichseemsinaccordancewithorsymbolicofHislaws.Forinstance,all

perfectlybeautifulforms,i.e.,allformsinwardlyornamental,Ruskintells

us,mustbecomposedofcurves(SevenLampsofArchitecture,p.104)

because every curve divides itself innitely by its change ofdirection,

displayingthesealorimpressofthatdivinecharacterorattributeit

isordainedtobear:innity(ModernPainters,vol.2,p.45).Teuglyis,

inturn,simplyanyformthatdoesnotbeartheseal,orimpressofdivineworkandcharacter.

Ruskinsfusionofaestheticsandtheologyisbothovertandforceful.

RuskinScholarsbroadlycontributethisfusiontohisdeep-seatedreligious

convictions.10Ruskinis,ofcourse,quitecandidonthesubject.However,it

isimportanttonotethatthefusionofaestheticsandtheologyinarchitecture

hasalonghistory.ItbeginswellbeforeandcontinueswellafterRuskin.TeoreticalspeculationsofPugin,Boulle,Laugier,Wotton,Palladioand

AlbertifromoneendofthespectrumtoSullivan,Wright,andLeCorbusier

ontheother,arejustafewexamples.Teremustbe,inotherwords,more

tothisstorythanthestrongreligiousconvictionsofanyoneindividual.

Teoreticalandaestheticspeculationsonarchitectureare,historically,

ifnotperforce,bothprescriptiveandproscriptive.Teyimposedistinct

boundaries. Tey seek to delimit the practice of architecture, in each

instance,totheonemodeorstyleparticularlyarrangedtoembodyand

promotetheworldviewoftheculturevoicingthetheorythroughtheauthor

and/orthearchitect.Tisdelimitationisaccomplished,andperhapsitcan

onlybeaccomplished,inthenameofbeautyandtruth,ratherthanulterior

-cultural,social,orpoliticalmotives.Itispresentedtobenotarbitrarily,

butfollowingimmutablelaws.Tepowerofexclusionthatisimperativetothedelimitationofpracticemandatesthistransformationofcultureinto

natureandthevariableintotheinvariable.Inotherwords,universalizing

theparticularwithrecoursetotheologyandtherebydisguisingcultureas

natureisnotachoicethatcanbereadilyavoided,giventheintendedpurpose


16/37

Ameri 16

of the enterprise. For instance, what Ruskin propagates as an aesthetic

architecture-VenetianorHighVictorianGothicindubitablyreectsthe

culturalandhistoriccontextwithinwhichitwasformed.However,placing

theweightofhisauthoritytoprescribethisandproscribeothermodesof

designonadivineordinancehasastrategicutilityinexcessofhisparticular

religiousconvictions.Heprescribescurvilinearformsnotbecausetheyhad,

astheydid,aparticularmeaningtoaparticularcultureatadistinctpointin

time,butbecausetheybeartheseal,orimpressofadivinecharacter,truly,

naturally,exclusively,andeternally.

Tebeautifulhasnoovertplaceinthevagariesoftheculturalterrainfor another important reason. In language, which Ruskin proposes art

and architecture to be, there is no positive term, no original event and

noautonomouselement.Dierenceanddeferralconstitutetheidentity,

orwhatisnotabsolutelydierent,thenon-identityofeveryelement.In

language,nothingsimplyiswhatitis,immutableandpresent.Aperfect

creaturecapableofnothinglessthanithas,andneedingnothingmore,

i.e., a creature that is self-referential and autonomous has no place in

language.Tisimmutablecreaturemayonlyemergeandndshelteron

atheologicalterrain,i.e.,theterrainofsimplepresences,clearorigins,and

explicit hierarchies. So long as one conceives and denes the objective

of architecture as a perfect creature capable of nothing less than it has,

andneedingnothingmore,onehaslittlechoicebutresorttoandplace

architecturewithinatheologicalframe.Placingandsecuringbeautysplacewithinthisframeisnot,however,withoutconsiderablediculties.

Keepinginmindthatinarchitectureeachornamentconstitutesare-

writingofthewrittenorsealedimpressionofanaturallyfrequentform

thatneedrstbesoughtoutthroughdeliberateexaminationanddirect

intellectual exertion (Seven Lamps of Architecture, p.113), that each

ornamentisanexpressionofabeautifulthought,thatis,thethoughts

or divine attributes impressed and sealed on natural forms of frequent

occurrence,e.g.,innityinthecaseofcurvilinearforms,Ruskinasksusto:

.... consider for an instant what would be the eect ofcontinually repeating an expression of a beautiful thought


17/37

Ameri 17

toanyotherofthesensesattimeswhenthemindcouldnotaddressthatsensetotheunderstandingofit.Supposethatintimeofseriousoccupation,ofsternbusiness,acompanion

should repeat inour ears continually some favoritepassageof poetry, over and over again all day long. (PP.113-114)

Teeectattheendoftheday,Ruskintellsus,isthattheentire

meaning of the passage would be dead to us leaving behind only a

sickeningandwearisomeformorrathernoformbecausehereformisto

bedisallowedthenamewithoutmeaningorthought.Repetitionincursa

loss.Alossnotonlyofmeaning,butalsoofform,anditisthesamewith

everyotherformofdenitethought:

Applythistoexpressionsofthoughtreceivedbytheeye.Remember

thattheeyeisatyourmercymorethantheear.Teeyeitcannotchoose

butseeNowifyoupresentlovelyformstoitwhenitcannotcallthe

mindtohelpitinitswork,andamongobjectsofvulgaruseandunhappy

position,youwillneitherpleasetheeyenorelevatethevulgarobject.But

youwillllandwearytheeyewiththebeautifulform,andyouwillinfectthatformitselfwiththevulgarityofthethingtowhichyouhaveviolently

attachedit.Itwillneverbeofmuchusetoyouanymore;youhavekilled

ordeledit;itsfreshnessandpurityaregone.(P.114)

Teplaceofornamenthasthuseverythingtodowithitslifeorworth

conceivedanddenedasthepresenceofmeaningordenitethought

inform.Placedinthecompanyofvulgarobjects-conceivedasaviolentgesture-orinplacesofactiveandoccupiedlife,wherenoaidcouldbe

receivedfromthemind,ornamentlosesitsfreshness,purity,sharpness

andclearness.Itisinfected,deled,killedanddestroyedforever.

Hence then a general law, of singular importance inthe present day, a law of simple common sense, - notto decorate things belonging to purposes of active

and occupied life. Wherever you can rest, theredecorate; where rest is forbidden, so is beauty. (P.115)

Tedeterminationofwhatisorwhatisnottheplaceofornament

follows, not accidentally, the application of one and the same test

determiningwhatisorisnottrueornament:thepresencevs.theabsence


18/37

Ameri 18

ofmeaningordenitethought.Wheremeaningcanbeperceivedthat

istheplaceforornament.Whereornamentsmeaningiskilledordeled,

whereornamentbecomes,bydenition,whatitisnot-meaninglessand

assuchlifelessandvalueless-thatisnot.Contrarytocommonpractice,

forinstance,ornamentsthatadorntemplesandbeautifykingspalaces

havenoplaceonatradesmanssignnorshelfnorcounterinallthestreets

ofallourcities(Ibid,p.115).Tere-allsocio-politicalimplicationsand

allsocio-politicallinesandlimitsatstakewithstanding-Ruskintellsus,

absolutelyvalueless-utterlywithoutthepowerofgivingpleasure,they

onlysatiatetheeye,andvulgarizetheirownforms.(Ibid)Hence, that general law of singular importance that is to end

vulgarityandviolence,ontheonehand,andtheabsolutelossofvalueand

aestheticpleasure,ontheother.Tisisnotonlybecause,weshouldnote,

misplacementhereconstitutesanegation,butalsobecausethemisplaced

cannotbecontainedwithinthatplaceasasimplenegation.rueornaments,

misplaced,notonlysatiatetheeye,losetheirmeaning,purity,lifeandvalue,

butinsodoingtheyalso,asamatterofsingularimportance,vulgarize

theirownforms.Oftheornamentsviolentlyattached,forinstance,tothe

signs,shelvesorcountersoftradesmen,Ruskinwrites,manyofthesearein

themselvesthoroughlygoodcopiesofnethings,whichthingsthemselves

weshallnever,inconsequence,enjoyanymore(Ibid).

Teconsequenceofmisplacementisnotasimpleinabilitytoreada

beautifulthoughtatagiventimeorplace.Rather,itistheimpossibility

ofreading,ifnotalwaysalready,atleastthereafteratanytimeorinany

place.Onceviolentlyattachedanywherebutitsplace,ornamentcannever

be enjoyed any more or in any place. Misplaced, ornament is forever

displaced-dispossessedofitsmeaningineveryplace.Placedoutsideits

place,i.e.,outsidethelimitsprotective,ifnotproductiveofitsmeaning,

whatornamentlosesisnotonlyitsplaceinsidebuttheverypossibilityof

beingplacedinside(limits).Tispassageisthepassageoflimits,leavinga

violated,vulgarized,valuelessformornoforminsideandoutside.Itis

adeathoranabsencethatisnot,cannolongerbeconceived,theopposite

oflifeorpresencestillinplacebuttheimpossibilityofbothineveryplace.


19/37

Ameri 19

Whatis theconditionofthispossibilityor impossibility? Howcan

thegoodcopydestroytheoriginal?Howcanaformwhosepowertoplease

wassaidfromtheoutsettobeowingtothewrittenorsealedimpression

itbearsofdivineattributesbedeniedthatpowerinsideoroutsideitsplace?

Insum,whytheveryquestionofplace?

oappearorbereadaswhatitindeedis-ameaning-fulloraformed

form-ornament,Ruskintellsus,mustbeplaced-retained-initsplace.

Teconditionofthispossibilityistheimpossibilityoftheformornamentis

desiredtobe-thewrittenorsealedimpressionofabeautifulthought-inits

placeoranyplace.Temeaningofornament,i.e.,itsreadingasform(ed),couldonlybesaidtodependonitsplace-formedinone,de-formedin

another-ifthisformdidnotprecedeitsplaceoritsreadinginplaceasthe

formofasealoranimpress,iftherewasnoplacewhereornamentappeared

formedor,forthatmatter,whereitdidnotappearinformedbyitsplaceor

placement.Tegoodcopy,misplaced,couldonlydeprivetheoriginalofits

valueifthatvaluewasnotintrinsicbutconstruedinplace.Tatornament

mustforgothepossibilityofbearingtheformofasealineveryplacein

ordertoappearorbereadastheformofasealinitsplaceisprecisely

whatthemisplacedornamentpointsto.IfRuskinndsit impossibleto

enjoyornament,onceitismisplaced,anymoreorinanyplace,ifhecan

nolongerreaditasthewrittenorsealedimpressionofabeautifulthought

inanyplace,thatispreciselybecausethemisplaced,theverypossibilityof

misplacement,whichisalsotheverypossibilityofplacement-thepossibilityofdependenceofmeaningonplaceorplacement-displacestherelationship

betweenmeaningandform,conceivedandreadasasealoranimpress,

alwaysalready.Misplaced,ornamentfracturesitsownseal,exposingagap

initsplacebetweenformandmeaning,whichRuskinconfessedlycannever

re-seal.Itpointstoitsreading,ifnotreadingingeneral,asamatterofplace

orplacementandtothelatterasaform,alwaysalready,ofmisplacement,

if,ofcourse,misplacementhereistoimplyareadingthatisconditionedby

itsplaceorplacement-areadingthatmarksaviolenceandvulgaritythat

mustalwayshavebefallenplacementalreadyastheconditionofpossibility

ofreadingformas(de)form(ed).Solongasformcouldbemisplaced,so


20/37

Ameri 20

long,thatis,asthereadingofformisdependentonitsplace,everyplaceis

themissing/missedplaceofthedesiredseal.

Terefore, where the misplaced or rather the possibility of (mis)placementleadsRuskinis,inamanner,hispointofdepartureandwhat

itleaveshimiswhathehadtostartwith:adisplacedformoraformwith

noform.TisisnoformforwhichRuskinhasorcouldhaveanallotted

place.Tisisnoformwhichinordertoberead,togiveitselftoaparticular

reading,bethisasatrueorafalseform,alivingoradeadform,apureor

aviolatedform,neednothavebeenplaced-aswithinaframe-andthisis

onlyintheabsenceofaplaceoranyplaceforreadingthatdoesnotalwayspointtoaplacementalready.

Terefore, to read the ornamental form as the written or sealed

impressionofabeautifulthought,whichisareading,weshouldnote,already

placedwithinatheologicalframeastheconditionofitspossibility,Ruskin

mustagainplaceandtheninsistontheplacementoftheornamentalform

initsplace-theplaceofrest-forfearofthemisplaced.Tisplace,however,providesnorelief.Itprovidesneithersimplyabackgroundnoraprotective

shieldagainstwhichorwithinwhichtheornamentalformcangiveitsform

toreadingastheformofaseal,pureandsimple.Whatthisplaceprovides,

itdeniesinoneandthesamegesture.Ifitmarkstheplacewhereornament

appearssealed,italsomarkstheplaceofitsdisappearanceassealed.Itgives

totheornamentalformwhattheformlackswithoutitsprotectivelimits

anditgivespreciselybecausetheformlacks.Itaddsandllsonlytoexpose

agap.Itintervenesanddoesonlytoconstruefromoutsidethesealthat

isdesiredtohavecomefrominsideandthesealthatthenappearstohave

comefrominside.Assuch,ornamentinitsplace-theplaceofrest-has,

inamanner,noplace.Itisneitherinplacenoroutofplace.Itisneither

protectednorexposed,butbothinoneandthesameplace.Itisatonce

placed,misplaced,anddisplaced.Wherethentoplaceornament?Where

indeedisornamentsplace?Whereistheplaceintheplaceofrestwherethe

desiredsealfallsinplaceor,forthatmatter,outofplace?Wheretolocate

ornamentitsdesiredplaceindeterminable-hereorthere-initsplace-the

placeofrest?Teanswer-theverypossibilityofprovidingananswer-as


21/37

Ameri 21

wemay expect, requires still further placement and/or displacement. It

requires further separation,distinctionandoppositionontwo sidesofa

linecalledtoplaceinwhatamountstoaperpetualplacementinsearch

oftheevermissing/missedplace.Tistimeatthelimitsofthedomainof

architecture,ontwosidesofthelinethatwassaidtoseparatewhatfalls

insidearchitecture as inner and true ornamentation from what falls

outsideitasoutwardorsuperuousdecoration.Ruskintellsus:

If to produce a good or beautiful ornament, it were onlynecessarytoproduceaperfectpieceofsculpture,andifawellcut group of owers or animals were indeed an ornament

whereveritmightbeplaced,theworkof architectwouldbecomparativelyeasy.Sculptureandarchitecturewouldbecomeseparatearts;andthearchitectwouldordersomanypiecesofsuchsubjectandsizeasheneeded,.....Butthisisnotso.Noperfectpieceeitherofpaintingorsculptureisanarchitecturalornamentatall,exceptinthatvaguesenseinwhichanybeautifulthingissaidtoornamenttheplaceitisin.Tuswemaysaythatpicturesornamentaroom;butweshouldnotthankan

architectwhotoldusthathisdesign,tobecomplete,requiredaitiantobeputinonecornerofit,andaVelasquezintheother;anditisjustasunreasonabletocallperfectsculpture,nichedin,orencrustedonabuilding,aportionoftheornamentofthatbuilding,asitwouldbetohangpicturesbythewayofornamentontheoutsideofit.(StonesofVenice,p.236)

Nobeautifulthing,therefore,isanornamentinanythingbutavague

sense,ifinitsplace,theplaceofrest,itiswhereverthatitmightbeplaced.Agoodorabeautifulornament,whichis,appears,andisreadassuchinits

place,isoneandonlyonethatintheplaceofresthasorcouldbeassigned

aspecicplace.othisplace,theplaceofornamentinitsplace,however,

thereisrstaconditiontoadmission.Noperfectornamentcanbeallowed

inasanarchitecturalornament.Perfectionplacesornamentoutsidethe

domainofarchitecture asdecorationoutwardorsuperuous. Asto

whatmayallowornamentin,Ruskintellsus:

Teespecialconditionoftrueornamentis,thatitbebeautifulinitsplace,andnowhereelse,andthatitaidtheeectofeveryportionofthebuildingoverwhichithasinuence;thatitdoesnot,byitsrichness,makeotherpartsbald,or,byitsdelicacy,


22/37

Ameri 22

makeotherpartscoarse.Everyoneofitsqualitieshasreferencetoitsplaceanduse:anditisttedforitsservicebywhatwouldbefaultsanddecienciesifithadnoespecialduty.Ornament,

theservant,isoftenformal,wheresculpture,themaster,wouldhavebeenfree;theservantisoftensilentwherethemasterwould have been eloquent; (Stones of Venice, p.236)

Teplaceofornamentinitsplace,whichistheonlyplacewhereit

mightappearbeautiful,isaplacemarkedbydeciencyandfault,andthere

theconditionofornamentsadmissionisimperfection.Teobjectivehere,

i.e.,theverypointofornamentationorornamentaladditiontoarchitecture,

is,weshouldrecall,tocreateaperfectcreaturecapableofnothinglessthanithas,andneedingnothingmore.Whereornamentthatisinnerandtrue

tsinitsplaceisatthatborderlinebetweenthecapacityfornothingless

andtheneedfornothingmore-thelineborderingtheperfect.Where

ornamenttsiswhereitaddstocompleteasaparttoaself-enclosing,self-

perfectingchainofimperfectparts.Admittingornamentontheconditionof

imperfection,Ruskinmakesvirtueofavice.Whereastheperfectornament

istiedtonospecicplace,whichistosaythatitcouldalwaysbemisplaced

andassuchdisplaced,totheimperfectornamenteveryplaceisamissed

place,unlessitisintheonlyplacefromwhereitcannotbemisplaced.Tis

istheonlyplacethatexcludesthepossibilityofmisplacementinbeingthe

oneandonlyplacewheretheimperfectappearsasagoodorbeautifulform

orwhatamountstosame,whereitdoesnotappearaswhatitisoutsidethat

place-badandugly.Tisthenistheplaceofornamentinnerandtrueinitsplace.Amostdicultquestion,however,remains.Wheretolocatethe

parametersofthisplaceorratherwithinwhatparameterstoplacethisplace:

theplaceofdeciencyandfaultttedwithimperfectionintheplaceofrest?

Whattodeneasdeciencyorfaultandwhattoadmitinasimperfection?

Wheretodrawthelinebetweenthemasterandtheservant,theperfectand

theimperfect,theinnerornamentationandthesuperuousdecoration?

Toughtheseareindeeddicultquestions,thedicultydoesnotdissuade

Ruskininanyway.Hebeginswithaninquiryintothecharacterswhich

tted ornament peculiarly for architectural appliance, and into the

principlesofchoiceandofarrangementwhichbestregulatetheimitation


23/37

Ameri 23

ofnaturalformsinwhichitconsists(SevenLampsofarchitecture,p.119).

Toughthefullansweringofthesequestions,Ruskintellsus,wouldbe

atreatiseontheartofdesign-nottomentionthedicultycontingenton

thetask-Ruskinchoosestoaddresstwocharacteristicsthatareessentially

architectural:ProportionandAbstraction(Ibid).

otheperfectionofallthings,Ruskintellsus,theappearanceof

somespeciesofunityisinthemostdeterminedsenseofthewordessential

andthisfornoreasonotherthanthefactthatinunitedformsliessealed

a divine attribute: unity (Modern Painters, vol.1, Part III, Sec.1, Ch.4,

p.50).Ofthemanyspeciesofunity,Ruskintellsus,theunityofthingsseparatelyimperfectintoaperfectwhole,thatis,theunityofmembership

oressentialunityisthegreatunityofwhichotherunitiesarebutparts

andmeans(Ibid,p.51).Anditistothisunitythatproportion,dened

astheconnectionofunequalquantitieswitheachother,pointstheway

(Ibid,p.71).Unity,Ruskintellsus,cannotexistbetweenthingssimilarto

eachotherbecausetwoormoreequalandlikethingscannotbemembers

oneofanother,norcantheyformone,orawholething(Ibid,p.51).

Although two equal things could have symmetry dened as the

oppositionofequalquantitiestoeachotherandthoughsymmetrybears

thesealofdivinejustice,insymmetrythereisnounity,onlyequality.

Forunitythreemembersarerequisiteandatthatthreeunequalmembers

unitedbytheproportionstheybeartooneanother.Terefore,Proportion

maybesummedupasaquestionofconnectionbetweenthreetermsat

leastandofthoseatleastonememberunequaltotheothers(SevenLamps

ofArchitecture,p.124).Tegeneralruleistohaveonelargethingand

severalsmallthings,oroneprincipalthingandseveralinferiorthings,and

bindthemwelltogether(Ibid,p.121).

Astohowtheseunequalthingsaretobeproportionedorboundwell

togetherfor the sakeofessentialunity, i.e.,aperfectwholecapableofnothinglessandneedingnothingmore,Ruskintellus:

....itisjustasrationalanattempttoteachayoungarchitecthow to proportion truly and well by calculating for himtheproportions of neworks, as it wouldbe to teachhim


24/37

Ameri 24

to compose melodies by calculating the mathematicalrelations of the notes in Beethovens Adelade or MozartsRequiem. Te man who has eye and intellect will invent

beautiful proportions, and cannot help it; but he can nomore tell us how to do it than Wordsworth could tell ushowtowriteasonnet,orthanScottcouldhavetoldushowto plan a romance. (Seven Lamps of Architecture, p.120)

Proportion,weshouldnote,isaquestionofinventionandcomposition

andassuchofthatvested,awful,inexplicablepower,notedearlier,that

deesexplanation.oavestedfew-themenwhohaveeyeandintellect

-thelawsofproportionasofcompositionareknown;tootherstheyshallremaininexplicablebeyondthegeneralrulesnoted.Hence,inthecause

ofunityandperfection,ifnotthedesireforaplaceortheonlyplacewhere

ornamentmaybegoodorbeautifulwithinarchitecture,eachinnerand

truearchitecturalornamentmustbettedtoitsplaceinaproportional

relationshiptotheformsborderinganddeningitsplace.However,the

secretofconstitutingsuchaplaceisknownonlytoavestedfew.oothers,

itisaverydicultquestion:wheretolocateandhowtotornamentinthe

onlyplacewhereitisgoodorbeautiful,ifnotbyadivineinterventionasa

vestedpowertosecretlyconstituteandtornamentinitsplace?

Althoughproportionismeant to tieornamentto itsplaceasapart

to a perfect whole, without abstraction, that second characteristic of

architecturalornaments,thetremainsincomplete.Architecture,Ruskin

tellsus,delightsinabstractionandfearstocompleteherforms(SevenLampsofArchitecture,p.120).Tesearetheformsarchitectureborrows

orimitatesfromnaturalformsoffrequentoccurrence.Architecturefears

completion, however, not because completion or full realization of the

imitatedformisalwayswrongorthatperfectsculpturemaynotbemade

apartofseverestarchitecture,butbecausethisperfectionisdangerous

(SevenLampsofArchitecture,p.130).

Itissointhehighestdegree;forthemomentthearchitectallows himself to dwell on the imitated portions, there isachance of his losing sightof thedutyof ornament,of itsbusiness as a part of the composition, and sacricing itspointsofshadeandeecttothedelightofdelicatecarving.


25/37

Ameri 25

And then he is lost. His architecture has become a mereframework for the setting of delicate sculpture, which hadbetter be all taken down and put into cabinets. (P.130)

Although a perfect ornament - perfect insofar as the realization of

theimitatedformisconcerned-mayberelatedproportionallytoother

ornamentsarounditasaparttoaperfectwhole,nevertheless,itsindividual

perfectioncandetachitfromitsplace.Teperfectformmaystepoutof

itsplaceorappeartostepintoitasaworkofartintoaframe.Tisisthe

danger,inthehighestdegree.Inthepresenceoftheperfectlyimitated

form,onemayreadilylosesightofarchitectureasaworkofart,andletitbecomeamereframe.Againstthisdanger,proportioncannotguardand

abstractionis,forthesakeofornamentstinitsplace,here,bydenition,

atthelineseparatingarchitectureasaworkofart fromarchitectureasa

mereframe.

Te question is rst to be clearly determined whether thearchitectureisaframeforthesculpture,orthesculpturean

ornamentofthearchitecture.Ifthelatter,thentherstoceofthatsculptureisnottorepresentthethingsitimitates,buttogatheroutofthemthosearrangementofformwhichshallbepleasingtotheeyeintheirintendedplaces.Sosoonasagreeablelinesandpointsofshadehavebeenaddedtothemouldingswhichweremeager,ortothelightswhichwereunrelieved,thearchitecturalworkoftheimitationisaccomplished;andhowfaritshallbewroughttowardscompletenessornot,willdependuponitsplace,anduponothervariouscircumstances.(P.127)

Beforeornamentationorornamentaladdition,theremustbeaclear

determinationofwhatarchitectureisorwhatitoughttobe:aworkofartor

amereframe,themasterortheservant.Tisisadetermination,weshould

note,whichatoncepresupposesandseekstomaintainacleardistinction

betweentheworkofartandthemereframe,asthemastertotheservant.

Wherearewetondorlocatethisdistinctionandtherewhatarewetomarkastheworkofartandwhattoleaveoutasamereframe?Ifanywhere,

itis,asRuskinpointstheway,totheplaceofornamentinitsplacethatwe

mustturninsearchofananswerandtherewemustmakethedetermination.

Teplacewemustturnto,however,couldwehaveeverleftit,istheplaceof


26/37

Ameri 26

danger,inthehighestdegree.Itisaplacethatisneitherclearnordistinct.

Itisaplacewhere,beforeornamentationorornamentalinsertion,thework

ofartasthemasterandthemereframeastheservantareoneandthesame.

Tisiswherewhatisneitheramasternoraservantemergesasoneorthe

otheronlyafterornamentation,dependingontheornamentation.What

wendinthisplace,ifwecanndourwayinoraroundit,isneitherthe

masternortheservant,butbothandneitherawaitinganimitatedform

which itself, by itself, is neither free nor enslaved. Tis is a dangerous

indeterminateformthatcanfreeorenslavethebuildingasaworkofartor

amereframe.Itisadangerousformpreciselybecauseitisindeterminate,becauseit isnotnorcanitbereadilyreducedtoonethingoranother,a

masteroraservant,andassuchplacedandkeptclearlyinoneplaceorthe

other,insidearchitectureasaworkofartoroutsidearchitectureasamere

frame,withoutlosingoneortheother,whichistosay,losingthedistinction

altogether.Also,thisisaformwhoseindetermination-itsabilitytobethe

masterandtheservantanditsinabilitytobe,orbereducedtotheoneor

theother-istheconditionofthepossibilityoftheworkartandthemere

frameconceived,conceivableasanoppositiononlyafterornamentation,

andyetonwhosedeterminationandreductiontoonethingortheother,

themasterortheservant,hereorthere,dependsnotonlytheclarityofthe

distinctionbetweenarchitectureasaworkofartandthemereframe,but

atthatalsoaclearholdonthelineseparatingtheinsidefromtheoutside,

andwhatisfromwhatisnot,architecture,beautyandperfection.Ina

manner,theauthorityofthisentirediscourseonarchitecture,onwhatisor

isnot,whatfallswithinoroutsidearchitectureasaworkofartdependson

itsauthorityovertheimitatedform,anditsabilitytoreduceittoaservant

insideoramasteroutside,clearlyandsimply.Hence:

Lose your authority over it, let it command you, or leadyou,ordictatetoyouinanywise,anditisanoence,an

encumbrance,andadishonor. Anditisalwaysreadytodothis;wildtogetthebitinitsteeth,andrushforthonitsowndevice.Measure,therefore,yourstrength;andaslongasthereisnochance ofmutiny, add soldier to soldier, battalion tobattalion;butbeassuredthatallareheartilyinthecause,andthatthereisnotoneofwhosepositionyouareignorant,or


27/37

Ameri 27

whoseserviceyoucouldspare.(StonesofVenice,p.256-257)

Soldier to soldier and battalion to battalion we must add in the

causeofarchitecture,beauty,andperfection,tomakecertainthereisnochanceofmutiny,i.e.,nochanceoftheservantbecomingthemasterand

architectureamereframe.Wemustbecertainofourstrengthandcontrol

overtheornamentalinsertionnottoletitleadus,inevitably,tothatdusky

debatablelandwhichthisdangerousformisalwaysreadytoleadus,and

wildtocommandandtakeus.Tisistheplacewheretheworkofartand

themereframebecomeoneandthesameandeachandallvanishinto

gloomforwantofaclearlineorlimit.

How are we to exclude the chance of mutiny from within the

parametersthatdenearchitectureasaworkofart?Howarewetoguard

againsttheever-presentpossibilityoflosingauthority,commandorlead

overtheimitatedformalwaysreadytorushforthonitsowndevicesfrom

itsplacewithinarchitectureasaservant?Tisisthechanceordangerof

mutinythatarchitecturealwaysfacesfromwithinitsparameters,totheauthorityandclarityofthoseparameters,andnotfromoutsidewherethe

imitatedformmaybeallowedthepositionofthemaster-asinacabinetor

aframe-solongastheworkofartandtheframeappearclearlydistinctand

easilydetachable.Tepossibilityofcommandingandleadingornament

toitsplace-theplaceofservitude-thepossibility,thatis,ofreducing

ornament to a servant within architecture, lies somewhere in between

completeabstractionandfullrealizationoftheimitatedform.However,

neitherthetwoextremesnorthevariousdegreesofrealizationinbetween,

inandbythemselves,presentorexcludethechanceofmutiny.Teline

separatingornamentationinner andtrue fromdecoration outward

and superuous, resides not in between complete abstraction and full

realizationbutinbetweenthepresenceandtheabsenceofaclearexpression

ofservitudeorsubordinationofwhichafullyrealizedformisnotcapable,

while anything less, depending upon its place, and upon other various

circumstances is. Te question, in other words, in so far as the line

betweenwhatisandwhatisnotarchitecture,betweenwhatfallsinsideit

asornamentinnerandtrueandwhatfallsoutsideitasornamentoutward


28/37

Ameri 28

andsuperuous,isaquestionnotofabstractionorfullrealizationpersay,

butoftheplaceandthecircumstanceswithinwhichtheimitatedformmay

expressitssubordinationsimplyandclearly.Aquestionof:

How far this subordination is in dierent situations to beexpressed,orhowfaritmaybesurrendered,andornament,the servant, be permitted to have independent will; andby what means the subordination is best to be expressedwhen it is required, (Stones of Venice, pp.236-237)

Aquestion,Ruskintellsus,thatisbyfarthemostdicultquestion

Ihaveevertriedtoworkoutrespectinganybranchofart.Tisisamost

dicultquestion,weshouldnote,onlyinsolongasthedesiredansweris

apreciseline,adistinctplaceandaclearexpressionofsubordinationfrom

aformthatdoesnoteasilysubmititselftothedeterminationofitsbeing

andplaceaswhatisorisnot,insideoroutsideofarchitectureandthisis

inspiteofRuskinsbestconstructiveeorts.Whathasbeenandremains

cleartoRuskinisthatforbuildingstobecomearchitecture,thereisaneed

for ornamentationorornamental additionof formsexpressive ofdivineattributesimpressedandsealedonnaturalformsoffrequentoccurrence,

assuchonlyintheplaceofrest,andthereonlyinaspecicplaceasa

partinproportiontoaperfectwhole,andinthatspecicplaceonlyin

aclearlysubordinateposition.Teonlythingthatisnotclearoristhe

mostdicultquestioninthissuccessiveplacementoflimitswithinlimits

aroundtheornamentalformisthewaysandmeansofdeterminingthe

place,thecircumstancesorthelimitswithinwhichtheornamentalform,

whichissynonymouswith architecture,maybeconnedandcontrolled.

Tesearethelimitsthatmaylimitthemovementoftheornamentalform,

giving itnochanceorpossibilityofcrossingbeyondandassuchtothat

duskydebatable land fromwhichRuskinhas sought architecture refuge

throughornamentationorornamentaladditionfortheclarityofdistinction

betweenarchitectureasaworkofartandthemereframe.Tesearethe

limitsofarchitectureitself.Telimitsindistinctbeforeornamentationand

limitsoverwhichcommandandcontrolremainmostdicultquestions

afterornamentation.

Terefore,havingmadeeveryeorttodeterminetheplaceofornament


29/37

Ameri 29

and the circumstances surrounding its addition to architecture, Ruskin

ndshimselfintheend,asmanyofhispredecessorsdidbeforehim,atthe

borderofarchitectureandthereorrathersomewhereinbetweentheinside

andtheoutsideoftheworkofart,inbetweentheworkandthemereframe,

confrontednotwiththeclearlineorlimitwhichhe,ashispredecessors

before,hadassumedtondthere,butinsteadwithamostdicultquestion.

Tequestion,attheriskofrepetition,oftheplaceofornamentinsideor

outsidearchitectureasaworkofart,pendingthedistinctionandtothat

endthelocationofthemissingborderline,theconditionofthepossibility

ofwhichisitselfornamentation.Tequestionoftheplaceofornamentfoundnotonthesides,butattheborder,astheborder,irreduciblethereto

aline,irremovabletheretothesides,inaduskydebatablelandfromwhere

ornamentatonceistheconditionofthepossibilityofdepartureandthe

impossibilityofexit.

Tere is inthispredicament, however, anotabledierence between

Ruskinandhispredecessors.WhereasthetheoreticiansoftheRenaissance

and the Enlightenment made every eort to place and keep ornament

outsidetheplaceofbeautyandperfectionasamereframe,onlytond

itintrudeontheborderfromitsassignedplaceout,Ruskin,havingmade

every eort to ndornament a specicplace inside theplaceof beauty

andperfectioninarchitecture,ndsitverydiculttokeepornamentfrom

protrudingontheborderfromitsassignedplaceinside.Ineithercase,

however,weshouldnote,thedicultyencounteredinachievingthedesiredeectisnotsomuchoneinherenttoornamentation,conceivedandplaced

dierentlyineachinstance,asitisadicultyencounteredineverysearch

foraplacewithdenedordenablelimitswithinwhichbeautymayappear

asanautonomous,self-referential entity inneedofneitheradditionnor

subtraction.Tediculty,inotherwords,isnotornamentation,rather

onenamedbyornamentation.Teproblemistheever-elusivearchitecture

itself.Itisthatperfectcreaturecapableofnothinglessthanithas,and

needingnothingmorewhichonlyappearsplacedwithinsuccessiveframes,

eachofwhichisputinplacetoovercometheperpetualdependenceofthe

beautifulonplaceandplacement.


30/37

Ameri 30

III.

In the preceding discussions, my intent has not been to point out

inconsistenciesorcontradictionsinRuskinsaesthetictheoryperse,much

less attribute these to his deeply felt religious convictions. I do not see

Ruskin as having somehow failed to eectively address and resolve the

problemof ornamentation. Ido notpresume that a stouter critic may

somehow overcome the obstacles he faced and succeed in curbing and

placingornamentinitsplace.othecontrary,Ihavetriedtopointout

how thorough and systematic Ruskins argumentationsare and why theproblemshefacesareendemictothetheoreticalenterpriseandnotmerely

areectionofpersonalfailingsorinconsistencies.

Te diculties Ruskin faces are endemic because, concerned as

theoreticalspeculationsonarchitecturearewiththeplaceandtheplacing

of architectures borderlines, the borderlines themselves are presumed

to precede speculation over their place. Ruskins is a case in point. If

architecturesborderswereagiven,however,speculationovertheirplace

wouldbeatbestredundant.Tougharchitectureispresumedtoprecede

theory, from a certain vantage point, there is no architecture before

theoreticaladdition,supplementation,and/orornamentation.

o design is to face multiple possibilities and no ground for the

delimitationofformaloptions.Tefunctionsofanedicesuggestnoone

formandmuchlessadirection.Indeferencetobiologicalneeds,function

is nebulous and multi-directional. However, it assumes a trajectory

and becomeshighly prescriptive,when it isappropriatedbyculture and

transformedintoaritual.Toughbynomeanssingular,aritualisdistinct

and unidirectional. It has unique spatial requirements. It demands a

specicsetting.Itisthisandsimilarprescriptiveculturalappropriations

thatmakearchitecturepossible.Terelationshipbetween architecture and culture isneither passive

nor neutral. Architecture,dependent as it isoncultural appropriation,

transformsthebodyofbeliefs,views,andideasthatshapeitintoafactual,


31/37

Ameri 31

livedexperienceofthem.Aculturesviewoftheworldanditsexperience

oftheworldaresynthesizedandturnedintomirrorimagesofeachother

through architecture and the rituals it shelters. Trough architecture,

metaphysicsassumestheauraofphysicsandculturetheguiseofnature.Tere

is,therefore,muchatstakeinappropriating,delimiting,andcontrolling

architecture.Muchisatstake,regardingaculturespowerandauthority,in

fabricatingaworldthatpersuasivelybearswitnesstoassumptionsaboutit.

Teprimary medium of cultural appropriationand delimitation of

architectureisarchitecturaltheoryinitsvariousguises.11Focusedasitis

ontheplaceand theplacingofparametersaround architecture,theorys

powertodelimit,muchasitsauthoritytoexcludeisvestedinaesthetics.In

turn,theconsiderablepowerandauthorityofthebeautiful,inwhosename

WesternculturehasvariouslyshapedandcontrolledWesternarchitecture

formuch of its history, is founded on ametaphysics that presumes the

idealsthatitsumsupinawordfull-presence,truth,authenticity,origin,

autonomy,etcasagiven,aground,afoundation,beforetheirnegationandcomplicationinthegureofbeautysnemesis:theugly.Tepersistently

stateddesireforbeautyinarchitectureisadoubletake.Itframes,shapes,

and controls architecture and it uses architecture to eectively realize,

evidenceandvalidatetheidealssubsumedunderthenamebeauty.

Teonly,andatthattheall-consumingproblemisthattheautonomy,

singularity,andoriginalityonwhichdependsthepowerandtheauthority

ofthebeautifulneverappearsun-appended,un-supplemented,unframed.

Tebeautiful does not appear without ornamentation, i.e.,without the

introductionandconstructionofaborderlinethatseparatesanddelimits

thebeautiful.Tisborderlineisneitherinternalnorexternaltothebody

beautiful.Itcanneitherbesubsumedwithinitnordetachedfromit.Itis

alsonotathing.Temeasureofthebeautifulistheornamentalandvisa

versa.Itisonlybyidentifyingtheornamental,byseparatingtheadditionalfromtheessentialthattheprincipalandtheperipheralarebothmadeto

appearassuch.Teborderofthebeautifulisneverthere.Tereisno

ornament.Tereisonlyornamentationperpetuallyconstruingtheborder

ofthebeautiful.


32/37

Ameri 32

Whatmightacceptneitheraddition,norsubtractionwithoutloss,

mustacceptanadditionthatisneitherinternalnorexternaltoit.Tisis

theproblemandtheparadoxofornamentationthatneitherinclusionnor

exclusionoftheornamentalcanovercome.Tisis,however,aproblemand

aparadoxonlyinsofarasonewishestosustainthepowerandtheauthority

toexcludeanddelimitinthenameofthebeautiful,i.e.,thepowerand

authoritytocontrolarchitecture.Hence,thepreoccupationwiththeplace

andplacingofornamentation,withitsmarginalizationordomestication,

ifonlytosustainthepervasiveandpersuasiveillusionofarchitectureas

an autonomous aestheticobject, self-governing, self-regulating, and self-imposing.


33/37

Ameri 33

References

Alberti,LeoneBattista

1966(c.1450) en Books on Architecture, 1755 LeoniEdition,(NewYork:ransatlanticArtsInc.)

1988(c.1450) en Books on Architecture, translated by

JosephRykwert,NeilLeach,andRobertavernor,(Cambridge:Te

MIPress)

Birch,Dinah

1988 Ruskinsmyths(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).

Casteras,SusanP.,etal.

1993 JohnRuskinandtheVictorianeye(NewYork:HarryN.

Abrams).

Emerson,Sheila

1993 Ruskin:thegenesisofinvention(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress).

Durant,Stuart

1986 Ornament,fromtheIndustrialRevolutiontotoday(Woodstock,

N.Y.:OverlookPress).

Finley,C.Stephen

1992 Natures Covenant: Figures of Landscape in Ruskin

(UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress).

Garrigan,KristineOttesen

1973 Ruskin On Architecture: His Tought And Inuence

(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress).

Helsinger,ElizabethK.

1982 Ruskinandtheartofthebeholder(Cambridge:Harvard

UniversityPress).

Hewison,Robert


34/37

Ameri 34

1981 New approaches to Ruskin (London: Routledge &

KeganPaul).

1976 John Ruskin: the argument of the eye (Princeton:.PrincetonUniversityPress).

Jensen,RobertandPatriciaConway

1982 Ornamentalism(NewYork:ClarksonN.Potter).

Kirchho,Frederick

1984 JohnRuskin(Boston:waynePublishers).

Landow,GeorgeP.

1985 Ruskin(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).

1971 Te Aesthetic and Critical Teories of John Ruskin

(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress).

Laugier,Marc-Antoine

1977(1756) AnEssayonArchitecture, translatedbyWolfgangand

AnnieHermman,(LosAngeles:Hennesey&IngallsInc.)

LeCorbusier

1923 VersUneArchitecture.Englishtrans.owardsaNewArchitecture,

FrederickEtchellsed.,1927.Repr.1960.(NewYork:Holt,Rinehart

andWinston)

Pevsner,Nikolaus,

1986 Pioneers of Modern Design, Pub. 1936 (New York: Penguin

Books)

Ruskin,John

1903-12 TeWorksofJohnRuskin,editedbyE..Cookand

AlexanderWedderburn(London:GeorgeAllen).

1853-5 ModernPainters,vol.1&2,(London:JohnWiley&Son,)

1979 Te Seven Lamps of Architecture, Pub.1849 (New York: Farrar,

StrausandGiroux).


35/37

Ameri 35

1885 TeStonesofVenice,vol.1(NewYork:J.Wiley)

Sawyer,PaulL.

1985 Ruskins Poetic Argument, Te Design of the majorWorks(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress).

Snodin,Michael

1996 Ornament : a social history since 1450 [Michael Snodin &

MauriceHoward](NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress).

rilling,James

2003 Ornament: a modern perspective (Seattle : University of

WashingtonPress).

UlrichConrads

1980 Programsandmanifestoeson20th-centuryarchitecture

(Cambridge:TeMIPress).

Unrau,John

1978 LookingAt ArchitectureWithRuskin (oronto:University of

orontoPress).

Viollet-le-Duc,Eugne-Emmanuel

1987[1877] Lectures On Architecture, vol.1, (New York: Dover

Publications).

Venturi,RobertandDeniseScottBrown

1972 LearningfromLasVegas(Cambridge:MIPress).

Notes

1 SeeJensen,RobertandPatriciaConway,Ornamentalism,(1982).

2 Seealso:SusanP.Casteras,JohnRuskinandtheVictorianeye(1993);SheilaEmerson,Ruskin:thegenesisofinvention(1993);C.StephenFinley, Natures covenant: gures of landscape in Ruskin (1992);


36/37

Ameri 36

Elizabeth K. Helsinger, Ruskin and the art of the beholder (1982);RobertHewisonsJohnRuskin:theargumentoftheeye(1976);PaulL.Sawyer,RuskinsPoeticArgument(1985)

3 Seealso:QuentinBell,Ruskin1963;JoanEvans,JohnRuskin(1954);PaulFrankl,TeGothic:LiterarySourcesandInterpretationsthroughEightCenturies(1960);KennethClark,Ruskinoday(1964).

4 SeeAlberti,LeoneBattista,enBooksonArchitecture,translatedbyJoseph Rykwert,Neil Leach, and Robertavernor, (Cambridge: TeMIPress,1988);Laugier,Marc-Antoine,AnEssayonArchitecture,translatedbyWolfgangandAnnieHermman,(LosAngeles:Hennesey&IngallsInc.,1977);Pugin,A.Welby,TeruePrinciplesofPointed

orChristianArchitecture(NewYork:St.MartinsPress1973);Viollet-le-Duc, Eugne-Emmanuel, Lectures On Architecture, vol.1, (NewYork: DoverPublications, 1987); Sullivan,Louis,Kindergarten chatsand other writings (NewYork: Wittenborn, Schultz, 1947); Wright,Frank Lloyd, In the CauseofArchitecture (NewYork: ArchitecturalRecordBooks,1975),LeCorbusier,owardsaNewArchitecture(NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1960);Venturi,RobertandDeniseScottBrown,LearningfromLasVegas(Cambridge:MIPress,1972).

5 TesamepassagereadsasfollowsinRykwer,et.al.,translation(1988): Ifthisisconceded,ornamentmaybedenedasaformofauxiliaryligt

andcomplementtobeauty.Fromthisitfollows,Ibelieve,thatbeautyissomeinherentproperty,tobefoundsuuesdallthroughthebodyofthatwhichmaybecalledbeautiful;whereasornament,ratherthanbeinginherent,hasthecharacterofsomethingattachedoradditional(Alberti1988:156).

6 Astatueinamuseum,Brolintellsus,isnotanornament;butplace

itinaplaza,anditornamentsthespace(Brolin1985:229).

7 LeoneBattistaAlberti,enBooksonArchitecture,1755LeoniEdition,ranslatedbyJamesLeoni,NewYork,ransatlanticArtsInc.,1966,BookVI,ChapterII,p.112

8 Te emphasis on beauty is peculiar to the Western architecturaldiscourseasitisnotfound-notbythesamedenition,atanyrate-inotherdiscursivetraditions.woprominentexamplesaretheIndianandtheChinesetraditions.Tisisnottoimplythatthereisnoregulativeprocessintheseotherexamples,butthatthecriteriausedforrestrictingand regulating architectural practice in these other examples diersmarkedlyfromthoseintheWest.

9 Please see:OnTeExorciseofTeory,ArchitecturalTeoryReview,Sydney, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999, pp. 8-19, and Writing On, Te


37/37

Ameri 37

MarginsOfArchitecture,ArtHistory,theInternationalJournaloftheAssociationofArtHistorians,London,vol.16,no.2,1993,pp.336-348.

10 Also see Garrigan 1973: 137-210; Kirchho 1984: 41-60; Landow1971:81-84,135-37,147-50,162-63,243-65;Landow1985:10,40,48;Sawyer1985:84-85;Unrau1978:50;Wihl1985:168-82.

11 A building used as a model or precedent is as much a theoreticalconstructasanytextlabeledtheoretical.

Ameri_2005_On the Border of the Beautiful

Documents

Transcript of Ameri_2005_On the Border of the Beautiful