Reflection

Alex Webber

ARCH 329

Prof. Middleton

4.26.13

Reflection

As we have looked at our modern architectural founders over the last few months, it is important that I look back at all of the great architects that have come before me and how they have changed our profession for better and always. There are also lessons to take away from their ideologies and the way the marketed themselves as designers and leaders. I’ve been exposed and learned from so many different styles in this class, it’s easy to get distracted and lose your own identity from influence from the masters of the modern age. Here is how I identify with the styles, themes, patterns and processes from our studies from the last semester.

1.    There is no amount of history or theory that can replace your own style. We sign up for the architecture experience because we are all passionate and driven individuals and to lose that mentality along the way defeats the point. We can learn so much from the architects and designers of the past, but it is always important to stay true to your own ideas. Dare to be different, dare to be original.-Alex Webber

2.    To add onto point 1, one thing to learn from the great masters is that they brought something new and exciting to the industry. They weren’t afraid of changing the culture and changing architecture forever. Yes, they were criticized and ridiculed by some, but in the end you can either be the architect who tried something new and innovative to change architecture, or you can be the architect that played it safe and built the expected.

3.    As designers, we all must be unique in our own way, but we all must understand the need and requirements of our time. We can create timeless pieces of work, but still take into account the functional needs of our day and age. You can be an architect way ahead of his/her time, but if the people of here and now don’t use it, why would your work be around for the next generation? Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timeliness-Frank Ghery

4.    Respect the environment, both social and physical. Culture is a beautiful thing along with the wonderful natural setting, and to ignore them or destroy they is a sin that deserves the highest punishment. This is why I don’t like Le Corbusier, he had no respect or understanding for the environment. People ignore designs that ignore people-Frank Chimero

5.    The last point that struck a chord with me was the idea of the “charismatic” architect. Being a designer means you have to be confident in your design solutions and your own style, but being a designer also puts your work up for criticism. We learned how cocky Corbusier was and how humble Aalto was. We saw that Mies was a charismatic man, with high integrity and I learned the elegance of silence from Ando. There are so many personalities we can have, but the most important thing I saw was that you cant let your ego take control. We are confident people us architects, but there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance, and that is a hard line to walk. Never be too big to change a design or listen to an opinion. Remember who the project is really for….its not for our egos.

There were many architects that I enjoyed learning about, and there were also many that I didn’t prefer. I learned more about architects I already knew about as well, whether my opinion about them changed or not depends. Out of all of the architects Walter Gropius, Aldof Loos, Paul Rudolph’s early work really stood out for me.

            Simplification is the ultimate sophistication-Leonardo da Vinci

The idea of less is more and no decoration was very interesting to me because the simplistic approach really speaks to me. The idea of exposing a building for what it really is and letting the user connect with the structure and have a spiritual experience is powerful. My research on Tadao Ando was very influential as well. He takes that simplicity described by Gropius and makes it serene so that decoration isn’t needed. I feel that the raw idea of less is more isn’t necessarily correct, but leans in the right direction. 

Our final paper was difficult to say the least, but I don’t regret doing it in the least. The ideas and elements I learned from Tadao Ando’s work really took roots in my design philosophy. His understanding of materials and simple forms is magnificent, and I can only hope that I can extend my knowledge as far as he has done.

In conclusion, history has yet again caught my attention and desire to learn more. It’s always important to learn from the success and failures of your predecessors and if we choose to ignore their ideas, we have limited our success before we have even started. This class has helped us all in defining who we are as designers and architects, and the reference to history has made its mark. It impacted my 5 points above, and will continue to impact my choices till the day I die.

Free Plan

Alex Webber

ARCH 329

Prof. Middleton

4/1/13

Le Corbusier, Mies Van Der Rohe, and the Open Plan

Free Plan

            Architecture in our modern would have evolved into many different style and aesthetics. From the organic forms of Zaha Hadid to the industrial style of Tom Kundig, all of these style have generally one thing in common, the free plan. The idea of open space and movable volumes has become the absolute norm in our society. If you’re paying an architect to design a building, odds are you’re going to get a free plan whether you like it or not. Its become automatic in our design studios, and the seed was planted long before my generation was born. Le Corbusier and MVDR were the primary fathers of this idea, they nurtured it in very different ways but no matter, their work with the free plan allowed it to explode into our everyday lives.

            These two men handled this idea differently, and having them both be pioneers of the idea, they had the right to test it. The beauty in the free plan is that it is never the same. Plans may look alike, but the way they formulate in the three dimensional world can be very different. Looking into the manners in which MVDR and Le Corbusier differentiated in their approach to the free plan can also give you some insight to their character as architects.

Le Corbusier

“I will build you two houses and they will have vaults.”

                                                            Le Corbusier

            Le Corbusier was perhaps the first great master of the modern and international style. He brought many new and radical ideas to architecture that would resemble some of the Beaus d’Artes and some of Walter Gropius’s Bauhaus movement. As you one might defer from the quote above, Le Corbusier was an architect of conviction and certainty. He knew what his ideas were and he knew how to use them. That mentality leads him to become one of the first real global “starchitects.” The over-confidence and arrogance of Le Corbusier also pushed many people away from him and his ideas. The double edge sword strikes again, but for better or worse, Le Corbusier changed architecture forever and for always.

Villa Savoye Plan

            The most radical of the ideas that Le Corbusier carried was the Modular and how the golden section of the Greeks could drive our design and proportions of space. Le Corbusier spent many weeks learning from the Acropolis’s scales and proportions and developed a theory of applying them to modern architecture. The modular idea was based on having spaces be proportionate to each other while creating a proportionate whole. All of the spaces were squeezed into a free plan there for creating a truly complex space.

Domino Skeleton Structure

           

            Corbusier also championed the domino skeleton system, and here is where he really left his mark on architecture I believe. The domino theory frees the exterior walls from carrying any of the structural loads above so that the facades may become free for any design parameters Le Corbusier could think of. The idea of columns or “pilotis” taking the structural load was ground breaking and opened the interior and exterior simultaneously. The concrete structure came to the forefront of architecture at this time because of the newfound possibilities it allowed designers. The domino system also became the building block for Le Corbusier’s 5 Points of Architecture.

            1.Pilotis

            2.Free Plan

            3.Free Façade

            4.Ribbon Windows

            5.Roof Garden

           

            Le Corbusier studied long hours on the free plan and the domino skeletal system, and that work had put him into the history books.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

         “…the principal ornament in all architecture…”

                                                Mies van der Rohe referring to the column

Mies van der Roh in front of Crown
 Hall Model, IIT

            Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, or MVDR, was a similar character as Le Corbusier. An architect with conviction and an intimidating confidence, just look at one picture of the man and you’ll see. Coming from Germany in the late 1930’s, MVDR had a different style of training from Le Corbusier’s more artistic and painter background. As you may or may not know, he had a very distinct style to him and his architecture was a reflection of the free plan and what modern technologies afforded him. MVDR saw planes and lines with everything he designed, from the Barcelona Pavilion to his high-rise towers in Chicago. Mies become a sort of architecture Einstein from Germany in the eyes of many.

Barcelona Pavilion

            Modern technology like steel and glass became critical parts of MVDR’s designs and those materials really allowed him to push the boundaries of the free plan. Rohe saw the advancements as an opportunity to strip away many of the decorative styles we see in he past. MVDR may have picked up that idea from his studies with Gropius at the Bauhaus or perhaps it was his own Avant Garde. He challenged what architecture looked like not only in houses, but also in towers and museums alike. Crown Hall was simply a glass box on the campus of IIT, but his rhythmic uses of steel columns to accentuate the free plan was something radical. He saw architecture as a functionalist entity with the free plan being an elemental design, free from having defined spaces. The Moses of architecture…let my plan go!

Barcelona Pavilion Plan

            MVDR’s belief of stripping things of its decoration, and decorating the needs instead was nothing new to designers. Mies was merely the first major architect in America to use the idea; he should thank Adolph Loos for that. Mies though was different from Loos. Mies wanted to dematerialize; he wanted to see a world of architecture that designed off the flow of life and the fluidity of space, not the egos of the wealthy. He saw function, not decoration. He saw columns and planes as the skin and bones of the modern world.

Final

         MVDR and Le Corbusier were not the only men to pour their lives into the evolution on the free plan, but they were some of the first. The ideals and methods that these two created are still used today on a regular basis and have gone down as some of the most important architecture theory ever completed. There have been thousands of architects that have developed the free plan in their careers, some have reached similar heights as Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, but in the end there is a reason why everyone knows these men by name.

Citations

Benton, C. M. (2009). Back to basics: Maisons jaoul and the art of mal foutu. Journal of Architectural Education, 31-40. Retrieved from https://blackboard.bsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2197239-dt-content-rid-7951790_1/courses/2013Spr_ARCH329s1_Combined/Back to Basics Maisons Jaoul and the Art of the mal foutu.pdf

Conceptbook. (Photographer). (2012). Anniversary of the birth of ludwig mies van der rohe. [Print Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.conceptbook.org/2012/03/27/anniversary-of-the-birth-of-ludwig-mies-van-der-rohe/

Hartoonian, G. (1989). Mies van der rohe: The genealogy of column and wall. Journal of Architectural Education, 42(2), 43-50. Retrieved from https://blackboard.bsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2197247-dt-content-rid-7951796_1/courses/2013Spr_ARCH329s1_Combined/MVDR The genealogy of Column and Wall.pdf

Kroll, A. (Photographer). (2011). Barcelona pavilion. [Print Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.archdaily.com/109135/ad-classics-barcelona-pavilion-mies-van-der-rohe/

Kroll, A. (Photographer). (2011). Barcelona plan. [Web Photo]. Retrieved from Kroll, A. (Photographer). (2011). Barcelona pavilion. [Print Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.archdaily.com/109135/ad-classics-barcelona-pavilion-mies-van-der-rohe/

Middeldorf, U. (1947). Mies van der rohe. College Art Journal, 7(1), 34-35. Retrieved from https://blackboard.bsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2197246-dt-content-rid-7951794_1/courses/2013Spr_ARCH329s1_Combined/MVDR Distinctive qualities.pdf

Nozay, R. (Photographer). (2011). Ludwig mies van der rohe. [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://redingote.fr/lillustre/ludwig-mies-van-der-rohe/

Persinger, M. (Photographer). (2011). Le corbusier, villa savoye. [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://archinect.com/features/article/2673501/5-projects-interview-3-matthew-persinger

Wilson, T. (Photographer). (2009). Domino skeleton. [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/art-history-le-corbusiers

Blog #3

Alex Webber

Blog #3

Arch 329

2/23/13

Pre-Modernism Development in Architecture

Arts & Crafts (1880)

William Morris and his Arts and Crafts movement was the first of many architectural and product design styles that resisted the Industrial Revolution and the pressures of an evolving economy. The ideals were closer to the traditional values that Morris grew up with like plans with well-defined spaces and showing off a material’s true nature. Even though Arts and Crafts are known for the traditional handmade products that are highly detailed and of the upmost skill, the arts and crafts movement had more than just art and architecture to provide.

The greatest contribution that Arts and Crafts may have provided for the new world economy isn’t a physical product or style, but a method of marketing. William Morris was a genius in terms of his business sense and advertising his brand of Arts and Crafts. He formed its ideals in a societal manner, therefore making his style more than just about design. Arts and Crafts was about taking time and pleasure in ones work. Dedication to ones craft and improvement of their skill is what leads to happy workers, but happy people. Morris sold this idea and understood who is audience was. He wasn’t for the industrialists, he was for the everyday artisans and aimed to repair the damage the industrial revolution had done to their lives.

Art Nouveau (1890)

Similarly to the Arts and Crafts movement, Art Nouveau had a deep respect for ornamentation and the intricacy of design in the late 1800’s.  Functionalist and expressive, the Art Nouveau style designed plans according to function and liked to create strong, theatrical spaces. Art Nouveau also had a political message like Morris had, but it was a hybrid of the traditional arts and crafts ideals and the modern tools of the industrial age.

Art Nouveau took the first major step towards modernism by accepting the industrial process for what it is, and using its technology to improve public and private spaces in higher quantities. They took the delicacy and ornate structure of arts and crafts to create fluid, plant-like forms out of the new iron works. By using the repetition of the iron castings, art and decoration could spread at an exponential rate. Artistic components could now be mass produced and spread all over the world with a fraction of the time it would take a typical craftsman. Art Nouveau revolutionized the production of craft in the 20^th century.

Amsterdam School + HP Berlage (1900)

The Netherlands at the turn of the century was having a very unique architectural experience. The steps HP Berlage and his Amsterdam school were making on the journey to modernism are not easy to spot. The Amsterdam school was the first big movement that took traditional brick and pushed it to its limits. Brick started to become a plastic or free flowing material now, something that had not been done at a large scale before. At first glance, Berlage designed primitive buildings with no exciting or interesting facades that were always marked by a barbaric tower of some sort. But up close, you can tell how Berlage and the Amsterdam School were quietly changing architecture.

The greatest feature that this time period came to offer modernism, was the vast and monumental interior spaces that steel and ironwork allowed architects to create. The Mona Lisa of Berlage and his school were the fantastically large interior courtyards they constructed. Huge spans were now capable so that large public spaces could move inside, and factories could now become what we think of today. Large interior spaces changed what could be expected out of buildings, and how light can be introduced so that all areas of larger buildings had access to sunlight.

Finally, Berlage was a pioneer of an important societal progression and how architecture and other communal arts could lead to a better society. Berlage practiced and believed in the idea that in order for a civilization to evolve and grow, that all of the arts must take a step forward in the same direction. Architecture couldn’t change a country on its own, but it could be a catalyst of other arts to change. Then when you have multiple arts changing and evolving at once, then a society can move forward and flourish

De Stjil (1917-31)

Simply known as “the Grid” to many, De Stjil had perhaps one of the more unique ideologies of the 20^th century. Interior abstraction and the use of walls, planes and volumes became a major study of De Stjil. As seen in Piet Mondrian’s paintings, the grid could lead to a new sense of harmony and collaboration not only in architecture and building plans, but also in artist collaborating together as a whole. Plans and facades started to become more orthogonal and flexible in space. Interiors were moldable and plastic so that the user can shape their own environment. De Stjil brought something entirely new and refreshing to art that has not been forgotten since.

De Stjil saw that it was not objects in nature that we should look to for inspiration, but the placement and arrangement of solids and voids, planes and volumes. De Stjil was a refreshing new way of understanding art, furniture, plans, elevations, and our future all together. The qualities that were so strong a present in De Stjil are seen in modern structures all over the world and are still used heavily today.

Russian Constructivism/Supermatism (1920-1930’s)

After the First World War, Russians began to notice the power they had just by their mass of people. The Russians began to develop a crowd-based attitude to not only their revolution, but also the art and architecture that would tell the world that Russia is apart of the modern world. They designed and built monumental structures meant to house 15,000 people at the same time. Propaganda posters started showing the colossal power Russia had in its grasp and started to design building to reflect that. With a country full of hundreds of thousands of poor and hungry citizens, this new Russian image would include all of them in the formation of Russia’s new world order.

Imposing posters with power and demanding images lead to a Supermatistic way of life where everything new in Russia had to huge and monumental. The individual was no longer important, just the crowd and the scale of there new found power. Russia was frightening the world quickly, and everyone began to take notice. The massive public structures, functional without and decoration would become the icon of communism for the next several decades.

Futurism + Italy (1909-16)

Inspired by Filippo Tommaso’s influential writing on how Italy must look to the future for their designs, Italian Futurism was shock to European style. Futurism took out all of the ornamentation and traditional thinking of space, color, and function and replaced it with a raw, bare, and violently colored picture. Italy no longer needed to design with the Renaissance in the minds; they had to accept the future and all the materials as well. Steel, concrete, and glass become major building components of new Futuristic buildings. The innovations made in these material fields lead to the notion that buildings didn’t have to be static and reflections of ancient Rome. Houses could move and building could become steamships in their own way. That radical new approach is how the modern designer changes an countries identity and even global architecture forever.

Bauhaus (1920-36)

Walter Gropius may have been one of the greatest architectural and design based minds that the 20^th century had ever seen. His Bauhaus had altered design and arts and a whole forever and is still doing that till this day. The release from ornamentation and collectivist idea that art and design belong under the same roof has been copied a thousand times over. Gropius and his Bauhaus say that a community of designing minds can create a brilliant atmosphere for growth and change. Architecture was to be the sum of all the progress made from theater to furniture design.

Architecture was the highest form of art and beauty according to Gropius, and every detail in the building was the architect’s responsibility. From door handles to new curtain wall systems, Gropius became the master of design. The Bauhaus movement saw the flaws of the past and criticized them in his structures by replacing ornamentation with functionality. Bauhaus no longer wanted to cover up the connections, steel, or concrete and instead wanted to emphasize their structural importance by giving them visual real estate. Half the beauty of Bauhaus was that it removed all things “beautiful” and left the critical components.

Perhaps the most influential style of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the Bauhaus was the Mecca of modern design in the 20’s-30’s. This school alone may have affected modernism more that all of the previous styles. Even though Bauhaus ideals were not as popular in the private sector, the amount it achieved in one school was more monumental the any Russian Constructivist building. Bauhaus changed the design world for better and for always and was the foundation for a new modern style to evolve.

Bauhaus Art Poster. 2010. Deviant ArtWeb. 23 Feb 2013. <http://blueberrylife.deviantart.com/art/bauhaus-art-poster-155400604>.

Boutell, Kendra. Decorative Arts: Arts and Crafts Movement. 2010. Porcelains and PeacocksWeb. 23 Feb 2013. 

Chan , Kelly. Learning to Live with Visionary Architecture. 2012. Blouin Art InfoWeb. 23 Feb 2013. <http://blogs.artinfo.com/objectlessons/2012/12/08/learning-to-live-with-visionary-architecture/>.

Crouwel, J. Amsterdam School. 2007. Tippin' the Scales, Bijenkorf. Web. 23 Feb 2013. <http://tippinthescales.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/amsterdam-school/>.

Guimard, Hector. Metro Station Chardon-Lagache. 2003. n.p. Web. 23 Feb 2013. <http://www.cambridge2000.com/gallery/html/PC1913208.html>.

Mondrian, Piet. Art Nowa. 2012. BlogspotWeb. 23 Feb 2013. <http://karolisbikinas.blogspot.com/2012/02/piet-mondrian.html>.

Vockler, Kris. Bridging Modern Art, Graphic Design, and Glass Interior Design. 2010. idc coatingsWeb. 23 Feb 2013. <http://www.icdcoatings.com/2011/07/bridging-modern-art-graphic-design-and-glass-interior-design/>.

William Morris and his Guild

Alex Webber

Blog 2

2.2.2013

Prof. Middleton

William Morris and the “Guild of Handicraft”

William Morris (1834-1896) was a pivotal figure in not only the architectural and design facets in the late 1800’s in England, but he also played a part in its ethical and cultural position. He believed that you could not separate ethical issues from social or cultural issues, and that the change brought on by the industrial revolution wasn’t best for modern society. He and Ruskin thought that the art of the handcrafting could never be replaced by industrialization and the touch of a hard-working craftsman was more beautiful than the gears of industrialization.

Morris saw architecture as a method to express the ideals of a society and the effect commercialization was having on the everyday worker. His attention to detail and the objects that fill architecture as well as the building itself was a fresh perspective. Poor quality of life created by the Industrial revolution lead to a poor quality of art; similar to Ruskin’s idea that art is a reflection of its society. Art was “the expression by man in his pleasure in labor.” It was this school of thought that laid the groundwork for great, detail-oriented architects in the future and how their architecture and design could impact society. It became a new role in architecture, because now it was the job of the architect and the craftsman to improve the everyday life of ordinary people.

Morris was a fan of the medieval style and saw its emphasis on manual labor and craftsmanship as something to imitated. He looked at medieval design and nature for inspiration in his design and design philosophy.  Nature was a perfect example of god’s design and nature spoke to the truth of the material. Bold forms and strong colors from medieval styles inspired Morris because they were derived from nature. Those same ideals went on to inspire the likes of Frank Lloyd Wright and his colleagues in his Prairie School. Morris believed that the machines of the industrial revolution had degraded the quality of life as well as the quality of art and society. It was his passion for arts and crafts that would revive a mechanized society.

 “Artist should design, Designers should make things.”

Morris appreciated and demanded knowledge of how to make things, but the nature of the material as well. He saw it to be part of the designer’s job to understand how a chair is made, and how metal is cast. An artist, designer, and architect should be one in the same. All three must think and apply the principles in the other 2 professions. This leads to the idea of the “all knowing architect” and reflects the now traditional thought of an architect being involved in every aspect of a project. That same idea can be found in the works of Frank Lloyd Wright and Bernard Maybeck as well.

“Guild of Handcraft” was Morris’ 19^th century firm that looked at architectural components and more so, the handcrafted goods that filled his architecture. The object of the Guild was to craft everyday items delicately and skillfully for ordinary people so that their lives would be enriched. Craftsmanship was a thing of leisure to the craftsman, so work wasn’t considered work; it was a pleasure to the worker. Morris idealized passion in the workplace and commitment to your craft and making yourself a better craftsman through practice and dedication. These values could not be found in the factories of industrialization. In the end though, the labor and time required became too expensive for the guild and their works could only be afforded by the wealthy, therefore undermining his original goals.

Perhaps greatest gift the Guild gave society was not the beautiful handcrafted goods they produced, but the style of business they ran. Morris saw the world and its economy as becoming too big, so he reflected that in his business model both as an architect and as leader of the Craft Guild. Morris found great value in Ruskin’s idea of being a socially responsible businessman, and forging your own market. Taking limited work and even refusing some works were common practice for Morris. He had to create his own label, while still using his work as a benchmark for responsible business growth. He realized that you brand yourself by your work, so whatever you design or build is a reflection on you and will impact your future business model. Doing the cheap and easy work with no craft, will only lead to more cheap, craft less work.

These values that drove Morris and his guild are values that are still emphasized in today’s market. Branding has become such a hot topic that corporations will spend millions of dollars working on a logo. Architecture firms design with sustainability in mind and make sure that the user knows it. LEED and the USGBC have driven green branding to a whole new level. Architects now know that if you aren’t designing sustainably, that it reflects poorly on their firm. The ability to maintain a positive public image through websites, newspapers, magazines, and social media has become multi-million dollar investments. William Morris obviously didn’t have social media, but he knew that by taking the projects he firmly believed in and putting craft into his work would brand him the way he wanted. All architects and designers can feed from Morris in this way.

APA CITATIONS

Harvey, C., & Press, J. (1995). John ruskin and the ethical foundations of morris & company. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(3), 181-194.

Kinna, R. (2000). William morris:art, work, and leisure.Journal of the History of Ideas, 61(3), 493-512.

Rupert, C. (Photographer). (2008). Retrieved from http://www.theearthlyparadise.com/2008/07/page/4/

Salmon, N. (Photographer). (n.d.). William morris internet archive. [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/chrono.htm

Webb, W. (Designer). (1859). Architectural drawings for the red house. [Web Drawing]. Retrieved from http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/webb/7.html

Blog 1

Alex Webber

ARCH 329

Blog 1

1/22/13

Viollet le Duc vs. Ruskin vs. Semper

Architectural Method

Viollet le Duc, Jonathan Ruskin, and Gottfried Semper all had a string of keywords that could be used to describe their methodology and ideals on how the new world should/could be designed. They all experienced a sense of boundlessness in architecture because of the great shift in society and social structure of their time. With the power lying with the people, architects had a new client, the masses of people and not their leaders.

These three very different men and designers had a few things in common which together set the basics and fundamentals of design in the new modern world. There had to be some principles that could not be completely abandoned at the turn of the 19^th century.  Respect for the Renaissance or Gothic styled architecture between the 3 men was huge and laid the foundation for their three different branches. Also, all three of them had a deep respect for the craftsmanship found in historic styles, even though they might see the craftsmanship as a vessel for a different meaning in architecture.

All 3 men were very different characters in the new 19^th century theater, and here is how they could be classified and categorized.

Viollet le Duc

Le Duc would be the confident and reassured figure with his belief that he can rationalize what previous architect were thinking and in with his independent nature. Primary works are the restoration of Notre Dame and Vezelat.

Facility of Reasoning

Le Duc believed that all architecture deals with a facility of reasoning through its process and its application of Greek forms and shapes.  He was to create a modern parallel of historic expositions so new architecture could be as iconic as the older structures and yet be innovative all on their own.

Independence

Le Duc yearned for an original style all his own, but knew that there are aspects of Gothic architecture that needed to be apart of the modern style. Finding the balance of structure and in form was important to le Duc and his restoration of Notre Dame and its pointed arches. He kept a journal that would be filled his individual beliefs and how he thought there was no connection between the quality of art/architecture and the quality of a particular society.

Craftsmanship

Both Ruskin and Le Duc believed there was great value in the Masonic arts and the beauty in materials and how they should not be reinterpreted in any material other than the natural material. However, Ruskin saw the workers endowing beauty on a building with their work, while Le Duc thought that a building was already beautiful and that the ornate craftsmanship was supposed to extenuate the beauty already incorporated in the design.

Ruskin

Ruskin was the passionate orator with a special motivational and opinionated outlook on architecture and the world around him. Even though he never really built anything, his groundwork of architectural methods have directed the growth of modern architecture.

Feeling

Ruskin believed that architecture was a thing of passion, where the buildings we design had to be an extension of our soul and must speak to the people it serves.  Architecture has to be something more than just an ornate collection of wood and stone. It has to follow the 7 lamps of Architecture; sacrifice, truth, power, beauty, life, memory, and obedience

Nature

Ruskin had a deep fascination and love for nature in the wild and the pure nature of buildings. He didn’t believe in restoration like Le Duc did because he saw the aging of a building as step in its life. The older a building gets, the older it should look so that it is well known for how historic it is. He also saw architecture as a naturally ornate artistic expression where buildings had to be laden with great masonry and sculpture.

Semper

Gottfried Semper was the German man of explanation and evolution. He knew that everything, even art could be conjured and constructed from a mathematical equation. He was the most rational character of the 3 with practical admirations.

Parts to the Puzzle

Semper saw there being 4 major parts of modern architecture, similar to organs of the body or gears in a machine. The hearth, roof, surrounding enclosure, and the platform were the most critical parts for a modern designer to focus on. Like in everything, if one thing was out of balance or form, they whole, finished product was out of balance. He studies tectonics of materials and the practical aesthetics that can be found with particular craftsmanship like weaving of fabrics and ornate masonry.

Mathematical Formula

Style can be boiled down to a simple mathematical equation for Semper;

                   Materials and Tectonics

                   Local Context and Society

             +Artistic and Patron Influences                  = Original Style

                                    -Also-

                  Style @ Function……*Style is always relatable to its Function

Dresden Opera House (Semper 1841)

Eugene emmanual viollet le duc. In (2013). Eugene Emmanual Viollet le Duc. Britannica Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/15083/Eugene-Emmanuel-Viollet-le-Duc

Cope, D. (2011, January 20). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.onthisdeity.com/20th-january-1900-–-the-death-of-john-ruskin/

Gottfried semper. In (2012). Wikimedia Foundations, Inc. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Semper

Pevsner, N. (1969). Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the appreciation of Gothic architecture.. Londen: Thames & Hudson.

Summerson,J. (1963). Viollet le Duc and the Rational Point of View. Heavenly mansions, and other essays on architecture (pp.140-159). New York: W.W. Norton