Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0023
E. Emery
A polymath, Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le Duc (b. 1814–d. 1879), is best-known today as a restoration architect and champion of the Gothic style whose influential theoretical writings on form and function collected in the ten-volume Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle (translated loosely as The Foundations of Architecture; 1854–1868) and the two-volume Entretiens sur l’architecture (Lectures on Architecture, 1863–1872) exerted a profound influence on modern architects such as Victor Horta, Antoni Gaudí, Louis Sullivan, and Frank Lloyd Wright. An independent thinker who refused the normal French path to architectural legitimacy—training at the École des Beaux-Arts—the talented draftsman took advantage of his personal and family connections—including Prosper Mérimée, Ludovic Vitet, Baron Taylor, Jean-Jacques-Marie Huvé, and Jean-Baptiste Lassus—to obtain the knowledge, training, and commissions that would transform him into the preeminent 19th-century French restorer of monuments. Much criticized in the 20th century for having intervened too aggressively in well-known restoration projects such as the Church of the Madeleine at Vézelay, the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris, and the walled city of Carcassonne, the increased accessibility of archival sources has allowed 21st-century scholars to reassess his entire body of work, setting his voluminous writings and correspondence against the intellectual, cultural, and administrative context of his time, a period in which Viollet-le-Duc and other self-trained specialists laid the foundation of what would become the academic field of medieval studies. His restoration theories and influence have been well studied since his death, but his many complementary activities, particularly his prolific attempts to popularize architecture and history for the masses, have yet to be systematically explored in any language. Viollet-le-Duc was not just one of the first historic preservationists, he was also a talented draftsman, archaeologist, architect, engineer, public administrator, teacher, theatrical set designer, international exposition organizer, city councilor, journalist, children’s book writer, military strategist, and ecologist.
博学多才，eug - emmanuel Viollet-le Duc(生于1814 - 1814年)1879年)，作为哥特式风格的修复建筑师和冠军而闻名于世，其关于形式和功能的有影响力的理论著作被收集在十卷本的《建筑基础词典》中(大致翻译为《建筑基础》;1854年至1868年)和两卷本的《建筑讲座》(1863年至1872年)对维克多·奥尔塔、安东尼Gaudí、路易斯·沙利文和弗兰克·劳埃德·赖特等现代建筑师产生了深远的影响。作为一名独立的思想家，他拒绝走法国传统的正统建筑道路——在École des beaux -美术学院接受培训——这位才华横溢的制图员利用他的个人和家庭关系——包括普罗斯普·姆萨梅、卢多维奇·维特、泰勒男爵、让-雅克-玛丽·胡弗莱和让-巴普提斯特·拉苏斯——获得知识、培训和佣金，这些将使他成为19世纪法国杰出的纪念碑修复者。20世纪，他因过于积极地介入著名的修复工程而备受批评，比如vsamzzelay的玛德琳教堂、巴黎圣母院大教堂和卡尔卡松的城墙，档案资料的增加使21世纪的学者能够重新评估他的整个作品，将他的大量著作和信件与他那个时代的知识、文化和行政环境相对照。在这一时期，维奥莱-勒-杜克和其他自学成才的专家奠定了中世纪研究学术领域的基础。他的修复理论和影响在他死后得到了很好的研究，但他的许多补充活动，特别是他为大众普及建筑和历史的大量尝试，尚未以任何语言系统地探索。维奥莱-勒-杜克不仅是最早的历史保护主义者之一，他还是一位才华横溢的绘图员、考古学家、建筑师、工程师、公共行政人员、教师、戏剧布景设计师、国际博览会组织者、市议员、记者、儿童书籍作家、军事战略家和生态学家。
{"title":"Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc","authors":"E. Emery","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0023","url":null,"abstract":"A polymath, Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le Duc (b. 1814–d. 1879), is best-known today as a restoration architect and champion of the Gothic style whose influential theoretical writings on form and function collected in the ten-volume Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle (translated loosely as The Foundations of Architecture; 1854–1868) and the two-volume Entretiens sur l’architecture (Lectures on Architecture, 1863–1872) exerted a profound influence on modern architects such as Victor Horta, Antoni Gaudí, Louis Sullivan, and Frank Lloyd Wright. An independent thinker who refused the normal French path to architectural legitimacy—training at the École des Beaux-Arts—the talented draftsman took advantage of his personal and family connections—including Prosper Mérimée, Ludovic Vitet, Baron Taylor, Jean-Jacques-Marie Huvé, and Jean-Baptiste Lassus—to obtain the knowledge, training, and commissions that would transform him into the preeminent 19th-century French restorer of monuments. Much criticized in the 20th century for having intervened too aggressively in well-known restoration projects such as the Church of the Madeleine at Vézelay, the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris, and the walled city of Carcassonne, the increased accessibility of archival sources has allowed 21st-century scholars to reassess his entire body of work, setting his voluminous writings and correspondence against the intellectual, cultural, and administrative context of his time, a period in which Viollet-le-Duc and other self-trained specialists laid the foundation of what would become the academic field of medieval studies. His restoration theories and influence have been well studied since his death, but his many complementary activities, particularly his prolific attempts to popularize architecture and history for the masses, have yet to be systematically explored in any language. Viollet-le-Duc was not just one of the first historic preservationists, he was also a talented draftsman, archaeologist, architect, engineer, public administrator, teacher, theatrical set designer, international exposition organizer, city councilor, journalist, children’s book writer, military strategist, and ecologist.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"153 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123604160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0017
Cynthia G. Falk
Vernacular architecture refers to both a subject of study and a way of approaching that subject. Vernacular architecture studies emphasize the connections between the built environment and the people who interact with it, reflecting on the two-way nature of those relationships. People, sometimes known by name and sometimes anonymous, plan and erect buildings, but physical spaces also influence how groups and individuals use them. With this in mind, students of vernacular architecture often ask “why” questions, and they are likely to be interested in the entire life cycle of a building, its surroundings, and its interiors rather than just the moment of creation and exterior appearance. The scholarship on vernacular architecture contrasts with more typical architectural history in that it is concerned with the everyday. Ordinary buildings, landscapes, and interiors—the type of things that don’t often attract much attention—are its primary focus. The formal study of vernacular architecture is a relatively new pursuit. While interest in old buildings goes back centuries, it was really in the 1970s that the field developed its current trajectory. In the works that follow, architect-designed buildings are the exception rather than the rule. In terms of methodology, the unifying approach—regardless of type, date, or construction—involves fieldwork, which can mean documenting buildings and spaces through photography and the creation of measured drawings, as well as documenting the human experience through oral history and ethnographic methods. Documentary sources also play an important role in the study of vernacular architecture, especially when the subject involves the more distant past. The study of vernacular architecture is multidisciplinary. The authors of the following books, articles, and websites come from a variety of academic backgrounds, including art history, history, folklore, anthropology, archaeology, cultural geography, architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning, among others. Some teach in the academy, but others work at museums and historic sites, cultural resource management firms, historic preservation offices, and other governmental entities. In North America, the Vernacular Architecture Forum (VAF) is the preeminent organization for the study of vernacular architecture. The VAF traces its roots, in part, to a similar organization, the Vernacular Architecture Group (VAG), which was established in England in 1952 with a focus on the British Isles.
{"title":"Vernacular Architecture","authors":"Cynthia G. Falk","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0017","url":null,"abstract":"Vernacular architecture refers to both a subject of study and a way of approaching that subject. Vernacular architecture studies emphasize the connections between the built environment and the people who interact with it, reflecting on the two-way nature of those relationships. People, sometimes known by name and sometimes anonymous, plan and erect buildings, but physical spaces also influence how groups and individuals use them. With this in mind, students of vernacular architecture often ask “why” questions, and they are likely to be interested in the entire life cycle of a building, its surroundings, and its interiors rather than just the moment of creation and exterior appearance. The scholarship on vernacular architecture contrasts with more typical architectural history in that it is concerned with the everyday. Ordinary buildings, landscapes, and interiors—the type of things that don’t often attract much attention—are its primary focus. The formal study of vernacular architecture is a relatively new pursuit. While interest in old buildings goes back centuries, it was really in the 1970s that the field developed its current trajectory. In the works that follow, architect-designed buildings are the exception rather than the rule. In terms of methodology, the unifying approach—regardless of type, date, or construction—involves fieldwork, which can mean documenting buildings and spaces through photography and the creation of measured drawings, as well as documenting the human experience through oral history and ethnographic methods. Documentary sources also play an important role in the study of vernacular architecture, especially when the subject involves the more distant past. The study of vernacular architecture is multidisciplinary. The authors of the following books, articles, and websites come from a variety of academic backgrounds, including art history, history, folklore, anthropology, archaeology, cultural geography, architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning, among others. Some teach in the academy, but others work at museums and historic sites, cultural resource management firms, historic preservation offices, and other governmental entities. In North America, the Vernacular Architecture Forum (VAF) is the preeminent organization for the study of vernacular architecture. The VAF traces its roots, in part, to a similar organization, the Vernacular Architecture Group (VAG), which was established in England in 1952 with a focus on the British Isles.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129472319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0009
Joanna Merwood-Salisbury
While contemporary scholars question the existence of a cohesive “Chicago School” of architecture, there is no doubt that by the mid-1890s Chicago came to be recognized nationally and internationally for the technological and aesthetic innovation evident in a number of commercial buildings erected in the downtown business area known as the Loop. These buildings serviced the rapid growth of a city founded earlier in the century as a major trading hub linking the East Coast and the American “West.” Principally office buildings, some were erected for particular companies while others were built as speculative ventures. These innovations were known first as the “commercial style,” then simply as “tall office buildings”; the term “skycraper” came into popular use around 1895. In order to find the correct expression for this unprecedented building type, local architects adapted historical styles including the neo-Gothic, the Romanesque, the Venetian, and the neoclassical. In their published writings, they positioned their work as the development of an indigenous American style particular to the region. By the 1920s, critics described this style as the product of an identifiable “Chicago School.” The idea of such a school played, and continues to play, a significant role in histories of modern architecture. For much of the 20th century, the term referred to a select group of commercial buildings erected between roughly 1883 and 1910. During that period, the Chicago School was positioned as precursor to the modern or International style, prefiguring the functionalism and “new objectivity” of the early-20th-century European avant-garde. Since the 1980s, scholars have dismantled the narrow and monolithic view of the subject, placing its key monuments back within the specific social and economic concerns of the late 19th century, introducing a wider range of projects and typologies for consideration, and including projects constructed up until about 1920. There is less emphasis on aesthetic commonality, and more on the diversity of built responses to the forces of industrialization, urbanization, and capitalism that shaped the American city. The texts listed here survey the Chicago School as it was defined during the 20th century as well as more recent scholarship that questions the canonical view.
{"title":"Chicago School","authors":"Joanna Merwood-Salisbury","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0009","url":null,"abstract":"While contemporary scholars question the existence of a cohesive “Chicago School” of architecture, there is no doubt that by the mid-1890s Chicago came to be recognized nationally and internationally for the technological and aesthetic innovation evident in a number of commercial buildings erected in the downtown business area known as the Loop. These buildings serviced the rapid growth of a city founded earlier in the century as a major trading hub linking the East Coast and the American “West.” Principally office buildings, some were erected for particular companies while others were built as speculative ventures. These innovations were known first as the “commercial style,” then simply as “tall office buildings”; the term “skycraper” came into popular use around 1895. In order to find the correct expression for this unprecedented building type, local architects adapted historical styles including the neo-Gothic, the Romanesque, the Venetian, and the neoclassical. In their published writings, they positioned their work as the development of an indigenous American style particular to the region. By the 1920s, critics described this style as the product of an identifiable “Chicago School.” The idea of such a school played, and continues to play, a significant role in histories of modern architecture. For much of the 20th century, the term referred to a select group of commercial buildings erected between roughly 1883 and 1910. During that period, the Chicago School was positioned as precursor to the modern or International style, prefiguring the functionalism and “new objectivity” of the early-20th-century European avant-garde. Since the 1980s, scholars have dismantled the narrow and monolithic view of the subject, placing its key monuments back within the specific social and economic concerns of the late 19th century, introducing a wider range of projects and typologies for consideration, and including projects constructed up until about 1920. There is less emphasis on aesthetic commonality, and more on the diversity of built responses to the forces of industrialization, urbanization, and capitalism that shaped the American city. The texts listed here survey the Chicago School as it was defined during the 20th century as well as more recent scholarship that questions the canonical view.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130875748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0046
D. Wendland
Vaults are curved masonry surfaces for roofs and ceilings, able to give shelter and protection. Fireproof and very durable, they were the only massive constructions available for such purposes before modern reinforced concrete was invented. Vaulted ceilings have often been a major issue in the creation of architectural space—as dominating elements with sculptural quality, and as fascinating constructions, often elegant, sometimes astonishing or even daring, always artful, and requiring and demonstrating great expertise and skill in their design and building. In early stone architecture, vaults built with horizontal circular courses can already be characterized as spatial structures. Since the early Great Civilizations, vaults were constructed with blocks arranged in radial bed joints—they could be built with great economy, with complex shape and adapting to irregular plans, as they are still in modern vernacular architecture, such as in Central Asia or in northern Africa. In Late Antiquity, vaults made with dressed stone show great ability in the geometric design—this art was later resumed both in the Middle East and in European Renaissance architecture. In Imperial Rome, vaults made of concrete reached enormous spans, were robust enough to last many centuries, and could be built virtually in any shape. Vaults of brick or stone masonry or of dressed stonework are among the greatest masterpieces of architecture, including the marvelous vaults in Persian architecture, the high vaults of Gothic cathedrals perfectly balanced upon slender pillars, the magnificent spatial inventions of Baroque vaulting, the great domes, and finally the creation of modern shell structures. By principle, vaults are stable by their shape. Their equilibrium demands curvature, regularly resulting in shapes with complex geometry. Therefore, they are very demanding in design, planning, and construction. Systems of anchoring or abutment have to be devised to contain the lateral thrust, and a shape must be created that enables the stability by counterbalancing the heavy components within the vault. Moreover, the building of the curved shape requires form control during bricklaying, geometric design of the temporary support structure, and, in case of stone structures, the formulation of precise specification for producing the single building elements. Therefore, beyond symbolic values, ideas of space in architecture, and the expertise and virtuosity of planners and builders, vaulted ceilings also reflect the historical development of applied geometry and mechanics. Their study gives an insight to the knowledge society that created the buildings.
{"title":"Vault","authors":"D. Wendland","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0046","url":null,"abstract":"Vaults are curved masonry surfaces for roofs and ceilings, able to give shelter and protection. Fireproof and very durable, they were the only massive constructions available for such purposes before modern reinforced concrete was invented. Vaulted ceilings have often been a major issue in the creation of architectural space—as dominating elements with sculptural quality, and as fascinating constructions, often elegant, sometimes astonishing or even daring, always artful, and requiring and demonstrating great expertise and skill in their design and building. In early stone architecture, vaults built with horizontal circular courses can already be characterized as spatial structures. Since the early Great Civilizations, vaults were constructed with blocks arranged in radial bed joints—they could be built with great economy, with complex shape and adapting to irregular plans, as they are still in modern vernacular architecture, such as in Central Asia or in northern Africa. In Late Antiquity, vaults made with dressed stone show great ability in the geometric design—this art was later resumed both in the Middle East and in European Renaissance architecture. In Imperial Rome, vaults made of concrete reached enormous spans, were robust enough to last many centuries, and could be built virtually in any shape. Vaults of brick or stone masonry or of dressed stonework are among the greatest masterpieces of architecture, including the marvelous vaults in Persian architecture, the high vaults of Gothic cathedrals perfectly balanced upon slender pillars, the magnificent spatial inventions of Baroque vaulting, the great domes, and finally the creation of modern shell structures. By principle, vaults are stable by their shape. Their equilibrium demands curvature, regularly resulting in shapes with complex geometry. Therefore, they are very demanding in design, planning, and construction. Systems of anchoring or abutment have to be devised to contain the lateral thrust, and a shape must be created that enables the stability by counterbalancing the heavy components within the vault. Moreover, the building of the curved shape requires form control during bricklaying, geometric design of the temporary support structure, and, in case of stone structures, the formulation of precise specification for producing the single building elements. Therefore, beyond symbolic values, ideas of space in architecture, and the expertise and virtuosity of planners and builders, vaulted ceilings also reflect the historical development of applied geometry and mechanics. Their study gives an insight to the knowledge society that created the buildings.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"166 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127237715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0040
Ivo van der Graaff
On 24 August 79 CE the eruption of Mount Vesuvius destroyed the southern Bay of Naples, burying the towns of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Stabia together with the farms, sanctuaries, and luxury villas of the countryside. Their systematic excavation began in 1748. A community of scholars and lay people have since investigated the cities and their architecture for over 270 years. Their ranks are varied, starting with art and architectural historians, classicists, classical archaeologists, humanists, and amateurs, and continuing with scientists specialized in disciplines as varied as chemistry, biology, and forensics to name a few. The study of Pompeii and the ancient cities on the Bay of Naples is almost its own discipline that has helped to germinate art history and archaeology and spark movements such as Neoclassicism. The result is a burgeoning bibliography that exceeds 20,000 entries, with dozens of books and articles appearing each year. Given the rich architectural remains of the city, many, if not most, of these publications relate to architecture. Yet much remains unknown and considerable research on the architecture of Pompeii awaits current and future scholars. This article constitutes a basic starting point to study the architecture of Pompeii. It focuses on primary sources and monographs, and extends beyond single architectural studies because the study of Pompeian architecture requires attention to external factors governing social behavior. Domestic rituals, religious practices, technological advances, social routines, social hierarchy as well as military, entertainment, economic, environmental, and political factors all came together to shape the city. Modern research in Pompeii began with art historical and epigraphic approaches producing catalogues and publications describing wall painting, inscriptions, statuary, and the objects of the decorative arts. Expansive topographical surveys describing the city’s architecture started to appear in the 19th century and gave rise to a fascination with Pompeii throughout Europe. The expansion of the excavations in this period prompted then superintendent Giuseppe Fiorelli to organize the city into regions, insulae (city blocks), and house numbers, giving buildings the addresses they have today (e.g. VI.12.2-7 for the House of the Faun). Excavations seeking to understand the long-term history of Pompeii began in the 20th century, first, under efforts by Superintendent Amedeo Maiuri and, later, by various international teams and individual scholars, leading to the comprehensive approaches that study the city today. These efforts have produced a consensus that divides the 700+ years of Pompeian history into three mains phases: Pre-Samnite (under Etruscan, Greek, and Punic influence), Samnite, and finally Roman Pompeii, which subdivides further into the Colonial, Imperial, and Post-earthquake (after 62 CE) periods. Each phase is rich and stimulating in its own right, but the Roman period is the one
{"title":"Pompeii, Origins through Destruction","authors":"Ivo van der Graaff","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0040","url":null,"abstract":"On 24 August 79 CE the eruption of Mount Vesuvius destroyed the southern Bay of Naples, burying the towns of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Stabia together with the farms, sanctuaries, and luxury villas of the countryside. Their systematic excavation began in 1748. A community of scholars and lay people have since investigated the cities and their architecture for over 270 years. Their ranks are varied, starting with art and architectural historians, classicists, classical archaeologists, humanists, and amateurs, and continuing with scientists specialized in disciplines as varied as chemistry, biology, and forensics to name a few. The study of Pompeii and the ancient cities on the Bay of Naples is almost its own discipline that has helped to germinate art history and archaeology and spark movements such as Neoclassicism. The result is a burgeoning bibliography that exceeds 20,000 entries, with dozens of books and articles appearing each year. Given the rich architectural remains of the city, many, if not most, of these publications relate to architecture. Yet much remains unknown and considerable research on the architecture of Pompeii awaits current and future scholars. This article constitutes a basic starting point to study the architecture of Pompeii. It focuses on primary sources and monographs, and extends beyond single architectural studies because the study of Pompeian architecture requires attention to external factors governing social behavior. Domestic rituals, religious practices, technological advances, social routines, social hierarchy as well as military, entertainment, economic, environmental, and political factors all came together to shape the city. Modern research in Pompeii began with art historical and epigraphic approaches producing catalogues and publications describing wall painting, inscriptions, statuary, and the objects of the decorative arts. Expansive topographical surveys describing the city’s architecture started to appear in the 19th century and gave rise to a fascination with Pompeii throughout Europe. The expansion of the excavations in this period prompted then superintendent Giuseppe Fiorelli to organize the city into regions, insulae (city blocks), and house numbers, giving buildings the addresses they have today (e.g. VI.12.2-7 for the House of the Faun). Excavations seeking to understand the long-term history of Pompeii began in the 20th century, first, under efforts by Superintendent Amedeo Maiuri and, later, by various international teams and individual scholars, leading to the comprehensive approaches that study the city today. These efforts have produced a consensus that divides the 700+ years of Pompeian history into three mains phases: Pre-Samnite (under Etruscan, Greek, and Punic influence), Samnite, and finally Roman Pompeii, which subdivides further into the Colonial, Imperial, and Post-earthquake (after 62 CE) periods. Each phase is rich and stimulating in its own right, but the Roman period is the one ","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124173936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0002
J. Siry
Louis Henry Sullivan (b. 1856–d. 1924) was the first internationally recognized architect in the United States to pursue the idea of a modern architecture independent of historic styles. He was supremely gifted as a designer of architectural ornament, which was an important component of almost all his major buildings and central to his thinking about architecture as art. Sullivan was also the first American modernist to write extensively about architecture—critically, theoretically, and philosophically. His central theme was that a modern American architecture should have form that follows function, based on the model of natural organisms. Born in Boston, Sullivan studied architecture at MIT (1872–1873) and in the atelier of Émile Vaudremer at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris (1873–1874). He returned to Chicago after its Great Fire of 1871 to work initially for William Le Baron Jenney, known for his early iron-and-masonry tall office buildings. From 1880 to 1895, Sullivan was continuously associated with Dankmar Adler (b. 1844–d. 1900), whose skills in architectural engineering complemented Sullivan’s design abilities to make Adler and Sullivan one of the most extraordinary architectural partnerships in US architectural history. Sullivan was the most outstanding creative figure of the Chicago school of the 1880s and 1890s, especially in his designs for theaters and tall office buildings. After the partnership ended in 1895, Sullivan continued to design major works in New York and Chicago, although his later practice, after 1905, focused mainly on banks in small midwestern towns. His work and thought inspired a number of younger contemporaries throughout his later life, including Frank Lloyd Wright, who was Sullivan’s assistant from 1887 to 1893. From Sullivan’s lifetime through the mid-20th century, he was known mainly for his role as a major advocate for and practitioner of a modern American architecture not derived directly from historical styles. In this way, much of the original scholarship on Sullivan was framed according to the overarching narrative of the rise of the modern movement. In this historiographic schema, Sullivan’s work was sometimes considered an American parallel to European Art Nouveau architecture. Since the 1970s, with the rise of postmodernism in architecture, Sullivan’s ornament and his relationships to historical sources, and to Romanticism, have been revalued as a focus for scholarship. Recently, there has been study of Sullivan’s and the Chicago school’s relationships to the city’s economic, political, social, and technical history in the later 19th century.
路易斯·亨利·沙利文(1856年生- 1856年生)1924年)是美国第一个追求独立于历史风格的现代建筑理念的国际公认的建筑师。作为一名建筑装饰设计师，他极具天赋，这是他几乎所有主要建筑的重要组成部分，也是他将建筑视为艺术的思想的核心。沙利文也是第一个在建筑批判、理论和哲学上广泛写作的美国现代主义者。他的中心主题是，现代美国建筑应该基于自然有机体的模型，遵循功能的形式。沙利文出生于波士顿，在麻省理工学院(1872-1873)学习建筑，并在巴黎École des Beaux-Arts的Émile Vaudremer的工作室(1873-1874)学习建筑。1871年芝加哥大火后，他回到芝加哥，最初为威廉·勒·巴伦·珍妮(William Le Baron Jenney)工作，后者以早期的铁砖石高层办公楼而闻名。从1880年到1895年，沙利文一直与丹克马尔·阿德勒(生于1844-d)有联系。他在建筑工程方面的技能与沙利文的设计能力相补充，使阿德勒和沙利文成为美国建筑史上最非凡的建筑合作伙伴之一。沙利文是19世纪80年代和90年代芝加哥学派最杰出的创意人物，尤其是他对剧院和高层办公大楼的设计。在1895年合作结束后，沙利文继续在纽约和芝加哥设计主要作品，尽管他后来的实践，在1905年之后，主要集中在中西部小城镇的银行。他的作品和思想在他后来的生活中启发了许多年轻的同时代人，包括弗兰克·劳埃德·赖特，他在1887年至1893年期间是沙利文的助手。从沙利文的一生到20世纪中期，他主要以其作为现代美国建筑的主要倡导者和实践者而闻名，而不是直接来自历史风格。通过这种方式，许多关于沙利文的原始学术研究都是根据现代运动兴起的总体叙述来构建的。在这种历史图式中，沙利文的作品有时被认为是美国与欧洲新艺术运动建筑的平行。自20世纪70年代以来，随着后现代主义在建筑领域的兴起，沙利文的装饰以及他与历史渊源和浪漫主义的关系，被重新评估为学术研究的焦点。最近，人们开始研究沙利文学派和芝加哥学派在19世纪后期与城市经济、政治、社会和技术历史的关系。
{"title":"Louis Sullivan","authors":"J. Siry","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Louis Henry Sullivan (b. 1856–d. 1924) was the first internationally recognized architect in the United States to pursue the idea of a modern architecture independent of historic styles. He was supremely gifted as a designer of architectural ornament, which was an important component of almost all his major buildings and central to his thinking about architecture as art. Sullivan was also the first American modernist to write extensively about architecture—critically, theoretically, and philosophically. His central theme was that a modern American architecture should have form that follows function, based on the model of natural organisms. Born in Boston, Sullivan studied architecture at MIT (1872–1873) and in the atelier of Émile Vaudremer at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris (1873–1874). He returned to Chicago after its Great Fire of 1871 to work initially for William Le Baron Jenney, known for his early iron-and-masonry tall office buildings. From 1880 to 1895, Sullivan was continuously associated with Dankmar Adler (b. 1844–d. 1900), whose skills in architectural engineering complemented Sullivan’s design abilities to make Adler and Sullivan one of the most extraordinary architectural partnerships in US architectural history. Sullivan was the most outstanding creative figure of the Chicago school of the 1880s and 1890s, especially in his designs for theaters and tall office buildings. After the partnership ended in 1895, Sullivan continued to design major works in New York and Chicago, although his later practice, after 1905, focused mainly on banks in small midwestern towns. His work and thought inspired a number of younger contemporaries throughout his later life, including Frank Lloyd Wright, who was Sullivan’s assistant from 1887 to 1893. From Sullivan’s lifetime through the mid-20th century, he was known mainly for his role as a major advocate for and practitioner of a modern American architecture not derived directly from historical styles. In this way, much of the original scholarship on Sullivan was framed according to the overarching narrative of the rise of the modern movement. In this historiographic schema, Sullivan’s work was sometimes considered an American parallel to European Art Nouveau architecture. Since the 1970s, with the rise of postmodernism in architecture, Sullivan’s ornament and his relationships to historical sources, and to Romanticism, have been revalued as a focus for scholarship. Recently, there has been study of Sullivan’s and the Chicago school’s relationships to the city’s economic, political, social, and technical history in the later 19th century.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"121 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124207237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0022
Aurelia Campbell
Until recently, architecture of the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) periods received far less scholarly attention than that from earlier periods. The first generation of Chinese architectural historians in the early- to mid-20th century mainly devoted their research to the architecture of the late Tang (618–907), Song (960–1279), Liao (907–1125), Jin (1115–1234), and Yuan (1279–1368) periods. Buildings from these eras were considered more valuable than those of the Ming and Qing due to their relative scarcity and old age. In the last few decades, however, an increasing amount of literature has been published on architecture of the last two imperial dynasties. This new research has helped provide a more complete picture of the richness of the Chinese architectural tradition. One of the benefits of studying Ming and Qing architecture is that far more buildings and building types survive from this time than from earlier periods. These dynasties left us with imperial palaces and wealthy people’s homes, from which we can learn a great deal about domestic architecture, fengshui, garden design, and interior decoration. Beyond individual buildings, we can examine entire towns and villages, such as Pingyao in Shanxi, Huizhou in Anhui, and Lijiang in Yunnan. Due in part to new territories being incorporated into China’s borders, “Chinese” architecture from these last two dynasties additionally encompasses the complex and diverse building traditions of China’s ethnic minorities. Also, during the Ming and Qing periods important new technological developments were made in carpentry, causing buildings to be constructed according to different sets of principles than those before the Ming. The study of architecture from this time is thus indispensable for our understanding of the long evolution of the Chinese building tradition.
{"title":"Architecture of China-Late (Ming-Qing Dynasties)","authors":"Aurelia Campbell","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0022","url":null,"abstract":"Until recently, architecture of the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) periods received far less scholarly attention than that from earlier periods. The first generation of Chinese architectural historians in the early- to mid-20th century mainly devoted their research to the architecture of the late Tang (618–907), Song (960–1279), Liao (907–1125), Jin (1115–1234), and Yuan (1279–1368) periods. Buildings from these eras were considered more valuable than those of the Ming and Qing due to their relative scarcity and old age. In the last few decades, however, an increasing amount of literature has been published on architecture of the last two imperial dynasties. This new research has helped provide a more complete picture of the richness of the Chinese architectural tradition. One of the benefits of studying Ming and Qing architecture is that far more buildings and building types survive from this time than from earlier periods. These dynasties left us with imperial palaces and wealthy people’s homes, from which we can learn a great deal about domestic architecture, fengshui, garden design, and interior decoration. Beyond individual buildings, we can examine entire towns and villages, such as Pingyao in Shanxi, Huizhou in Anhui, and Lijiang in Yunnan. Due in part to new territories being incorporated into China’s borders, “Chinese” architecture from these last two dynasties additionally encompasses the complex and diverse building traditions of China’s ethnic minorities. Also, during the Ming and Qing periods important new technological developments were made in carpentry, causing buildings to be constructed according to different sets of principles than those before the Ming. The study of architecture from this time is thus indispensable for our understanding of the long evolution of the Chinese building tradition.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124880087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0024
S. Bonde, C. Maines
The idea of withdrawal from secular society was central to the notions of monasticism and monastic architecture. The word derives from μόνος (mónos, Greek for ‘alone’). Christian monasticism made its first traceable appearances at the end of the 3rd century in Egypt and Palestine, though we know little of its architecture at this early stage. The eremitic ideal of the solitary saint retained its appeal, but was soon complemented by cenobitic monasticism where likeminded male or female ascetics joined together in communities that built architecture that was used in common. Monasticism as a religious form of life is found in Buddhism, Islam, and other traditions, though this essay will emphasize the medieval West, where monasteries were popular beginning in the 5th century. The various orders or congregations formulated differing architectural responses to their needs. The 9th-century Plan of Saint Gall, for example, represents an ideal meant to inspire emulation. Some monasteries were designed only for their resident populations of monks or nuns, while others might accommodate lay brothers or sisters, serfs, parish communities, visiting pilgrims, or dignitaries. A number of cathedrals across Europe were in fact monastic, following most often the Augustinian rule. The cenobitic monastery typically provided spaces for worship (church), sleeping (dormitory), dining (refectory), and meeting (chapter house) for the resident community, as well as buildings for reception and accommodation of visitors and other more functional structures (stables, storage barns, forges, mills, etc.). Monastic communities varied in size and might be very small or quite large. Some were found near or within urban locations, while others commanded large agricultural lands, including dependent parishes and granges. A survey of monastic architecture must therefore include industrial and hydraulic structures such as mills and dams, storage structures such as barns, dependent priory and farm buildings, and buildings for the care of the sick and infirm. Bibliography on monastic architecture is often divided regionally, and often focuses upon the church rather than the entire complex. Scholarship has privileged the architecture of certain orders—Cluniac Benedictines, Cistercians, and Franciscans, for example—over the more than five hundred monastic orders and congregations that once existed during the European Middle Ages. Archival research, architectural analysis, and archaeology are all contributing to a broader picture of the range and diversity of monastic architecture for male, female, and double houses. Traditional approaches to medieval architecture and its decoration have been primarily formalist, anchoring stylistic observations upon church records read as building documents in order to establish chronologies. While this approach remains important, new approaches such as stone-for-stone recording, C-14 dating of lime mortar and plaster, and dendrochronology, as well as th
脱离世俗社会的思想是修道主义和修道建筑概念的核心。这个词来源于μό ος (mónos，希腊语中“孤独”的意思)。基督教修道主义最早出现在3世纪末的埃及和巴勒斯坦，尽管我们对其早期的建筑知之甚少。独居圣人的隐居理想保留了它的吸引力，但很快就被新生物修道主义所补充，在那里，志同道合的男性或女性修道者聚集在一起，建造共同使用的建筑。修道作为一种宗教生活形式存在于佛教、伊斯兰教和其他传统中，尽管本文将强调中世纪的西方，在那里修道院从5世纪开始流行。不同的秩序或会众制定了不同的建筑响应他们的需求。例如，9世纪的圣加仑计划(Plan of Saint Gall)代表了一种旨在激发效仿的理想。有些修道院仅供常住的僧侣或修女居住，而另一些则可以容纳非专业的兄弟姐妹、农奴、教区社区、来访的朝圣者或达官显贵。欧洲的许多教堂实际上是修道院，通常遵循奥古斯丁的统治。新生物修道院通常为居民社区提供礼拜(教堂)、睡眠(宿舍)、餐饮(食堂)和会议(礼拜堂)的空间，以及接待和住宿游客的建筑和其他更多功能的结构(马厩、储藏室、锻炉、磨坊等)。寺院社区的规模各不相同，可能很小，也可能很大。有些人在城市附近或城市内被发现，而另一些人则控制着大片农业用地，包括附属教区和农庄。因此，对修道院建筑的调查必须包括工业和水利结构，如磨坊和水坝，储存结构，如谷仓，附属修道院和农场建筑，以及照顾病人和体弱多病的建筑。关于修道院建筑的参考书目通常是按地区划分的，并且通常侧重于教堂而不是整个建筑群。学术对某些修会的建筑给予了特权，比如本笃会、西多会和方济各会，这些修会的建筑超过了欧洲中世纪时期的500多个修会和教会。档案研究、建筑分析和考古都有助于更广泛地了解男屋、女屋和双屋修道院建筑的范围和多样性。中世纪建筑及其装饰的传统方法主要是形式主义的，将风格观察锚定在作为建筑文件阅读的教堂记录上，以建立年表。虽然这种方法仍然很重要，但新的方法，如石头对石头的记录，石灰砂浆和石膏的C-14年代测定，树木年代学，以及对涂漆层和3D建模的科学研究，正在重塑中世纪建筑的历史。与考古分析一起，21世纪早期的工作正在研究建筑和遗址的更长的和更复杂的文化传记。这种更综合的方法已经认识到，建筑不仅仅是修道院改革的反映，而是在塑造它的战略作用。
{"title":"Architecture of Monasteries","authors":"S. Bonde, C. Maines","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0024","url":null,"abstract":"The idea of withdrawal from secular society was central to the notions of monasticism and monastic architecture. The word derives from μόνος (mónos, Greek for ‘alone’). Christian monasticism made its first traceable appearances at the end of the 3rd century in Egypt and Palestine, though we know little of its architecture at this early stage. The eremitic ideal of the solitary saint retained its appeal, but was soon complemented by cenobitic monasticism where likeminded male or female ascetics joined together in communities that built architecture that was used in common. Monasticism as a religious form of life is found in Buddhism, Islam, and other traditions, though this essay will emphasize the medieval West, where monasteries were popular beginning in the 5th century. The various orders or congregations formulated differing architectural responses to their needs. The 9th-century Plan of Saint Gall, for example, represents an ideal meant to inspire emulation. Some monasteries were designed only for their resident populations of monks or nuns, while others might accommodate lay brothers or sisters, serfs, parish communities, visiting pilgrims, or dignitaries. A number of cathedrals across Europe were in fact monastic, following most often the Augustinian rule. The cenobitic monastery typically provided spaces for worship (church), sleeping (dormitory), dining (refectory), and meeting (chapter house) for the resident community, as well as buildings for reception and accommodation of visitors and other more functional structures (stables, storage barns, forges, mills, etc.). Monastic communities varied in size and might be very small or quite large. Some were found near or within urban locations, while others commanded large agricultural lands, including dependent parishes and granges. A survey of monastic architecture must therefore include industrial and hydraulic structures such as mills and dams, storage structures such as barns, dependent priory and farm buildings, and buildings for the care of the sick and infirm. Bibliography on monastic architecture is often divided regionally, and often focuses upon the church rather than the entire complex. Scholarship has privileged the architecture of certain orders—Cluniac Benedictines, Cistercians, and Franciscans, for example—over the more than five hundred monastic orders and congregations that once existed during the European Middle Ages. Archival research, architectural analysis, and archaeology are all contributing to a broader picture of the range and diversity of monastic architecture for male, female, and double houses. Traditional approaches to medieval architecture and its decoration have been primarily formalist, anchoring stylistic observations upon church records read as building documents in order to establish chronologies. While this approach remains important, new approaches such as stone-for-stone recording, C-14 dating of lime mortar and plaster, and dendrochronology, as well as th","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128687581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0044
G. Fenske
Our knowledge of the skyscraper as a building type is based on research exploring the type’s many facets, among them architectural, technological, and urban. In history, the question of a single definitive “first skyscraper” was debated throughout the 20th century. More recently, historians have asked: Is the type’s defining feature the technology of metal skeleton construction? If so, that places its origins in Chicago in the 1880s with the Home Insurance Building, Tacoma Building, Masonic Temple, and Reliance Building. Or is it simply “height”? That would place its origins in New York City during the late 1860s to mid-1870s with the Equitable, Western Union, and Tribune Buildings, both of which utilized elevator technology to attain height. A complete definition of the skyscraper, however, encompasses several key technologies. Making structures habitable for work or living, for example, required mechanical and electrical systems—initially plumbing, heating, and illumination, and later air conditioning. Within the city, a vast transportation infrastructure by rail facilitated movement to and from the skyscrapers of the central business district. Throughout history, the architecture of the skyscraper has illustrated aspects of American economic, political, and cultural change. The earliest skyscrapers in New York, the nation’s corporate headquarters, for example, recalled the towers of preindustrial Europe, and thus served as memorable landmarks, as demonstrated by the Woolworth Building, whereas those of Chicago, an entrepôt with an entrepreneurial business culture, exemplified the organic-functionalist theories of John Wellborn Root and Louis Sullivan, as realized in the Monadnock and Wainwright Buildings. During the 1920s, the skyscrapers of New York and Chicago inflected forms prescribed by zoning legislation, creating an urban vernacular specific to each city. New York’s 1916 ordinance engendered the setback skyscraper and its associated urbanism, with the Empire State Building as classic example, whereas Chicago’s comparable but unique 1923 code led to a “city of towers,” as illustrated by the Carbide and Carbon and Mather towers. The “Art Deco” and “skyscraper Gothic” idioms, best represented in the Chrysler Building and Chicago’s Tribune Tower, inspired exterior and interior ornamental schemes. The skyscrapers of the 1950s, by contrast, crystallized the “international style” in a society economically prosperous, consumer-oriented, and dominated by corporate enterprise, as superbly represented in the Lever House, New York. During the late 1960s and 1970s, technological optimism and ambition spurred the innovative and supertall Sears (Willis) Tower and the World Trade Center, which redefined the skylines of Chicago and New York, respectively, utilizing the structurally unprecedented braced tube technology to achieve new heights. The World Trade Center’s large-scale reconfiguration of the city’s fabric exemplified the day’s urban renewal sch
{"title":"Skyscrapers","authors":"G. Fenske","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0044","url":null,"abstract":"Our knowledge of the skyscraper as a building type is based on research exploring the type’s many facets, among them architectural, technological, and urban. In history, the question of a single definitive “first skyscraper” was debated throughout the 20th century. More recently, historians have asked: Is the type’s defining feature the technology of metal skeleton construction? If so, that places its origins in Chicago in the 1880s with the Home Insurance Building, Tacoma Building, Masonic Temple, and Reliance Building. Or is it simply “height”? That would place its origins in New York City during the late 1860s to mid-1870s with the Equitable, Western Union, and Tribune Buildings, both of which utilized elevator technology to attain height. A complete definition of the skyscraper, however, encompasses several key technologies. Making structures habitable for work or living, for example, required mechanical and electrical systems—initially plumbing, heating, and illumination, and later air conditioning. Within the city, a vast transportation infrastructure by rail facilitated movement to and from the skyscrapers of the central business district. Throughout history, the architecture of the skyscraper has illustrated aspects of American economic, political, and cultural change. The earliest skyscrapers in New York, the nation’s corporate headquarters, for example, recalled the towers of preindustrial Europe, and thus served as memorable landmarks, as demonstrated by the Woolworth Building, whereas those of Chicago, an entrepôt with an entrepreneurial business culture, exemplified the organic-functionalist theories of John Wellborn Root and Louis Sullivan, as realized in the Monadnock and Wainwright Buildings. During the 1920s, the skyscrapers of New York and Chicago inflected forms prescribed by zoning legislation, creating an urban vernacular specific to each city. New York’s 1916 ordinance engendered the setback skyscraper and its associated urbanism, with the Empire State Building as classic example, whereas Chicago’s comparable but unique 1923 code led to a “city of towers,” as illustrated by the Carbide and Carbon and Mather towers. The “Art Deco” and “skyscraper Gothic” idioms, best represented in the Chrysler Building and Chicago’s Tribune Tower, inspired exterior and interior ornamental schemes. The skyscrapers of the 1950s, by contrast, crystallized the “international style” in a society economically prosperous, consumer-oriented, and dominated by corporate enterprise, as superbly represented in the Lever House, New York. During the late 1960s and 1970s, technological optimism and ambition spurred the innovative and supertall Sears (Willis) Tower and the World Trade Center, which redefined the skylines of Chicago and New York, respectively, utilizing the structurally unprecedented braced tube technology to achieve new heights. The World Trade Center’s large-scale reconfiguration of the city’s fabric exemplified the day’s urban renewal sch","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129861078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0026
Johnny Hopkins
The designation “Republican” refers to the Roman political period, traditionally dated between 509 and 31 bce. Roman Republican architecture is understood as the product of the built environment in the city of Rome as well as the territory controlled by Romans during this period. Scholarship on Roman architecture in general has focused on building typology; structure, materials, and construction techniques; and design and urbanism—all frequently with an interest in historical context. The study of the Republic has incorporated these traditions, but analysis of the physical remains is often restricted, due to the much degraded state of many early monuments; thus, critical study of ancient textual sources is often crucial, and study of the historical or cultural context of architecture sees increased attention. There is an equally strong—and recently deepened—interest in sociologically and anthropologically informed study of the use and experience of architecture and its effects on Roman society. The best-known aspects of architecture from the period include the construction of monumental temples in stone and terracotta at first, and later incorporating stone entablatures, roofs, and eventually concrete from foundations to superstructure. As for the geographical extent of Roman territory (both political and cultural), it was rarely static and in some cases is poorly understood; furthermore, Romans were frequently in contact with communities and cultures around them, so in some cases it is essential to look outside of Roman territory to understand Roman Republican-era architecture. This bibliography is not meant as a digest of buildings, but rather, after General Overviews and Reference Works, it covers various important topics in the field. As a whole, though, the citations have been assembled in a way that there should be at least one key source on most of the major monuments of the Roman Republic. The bibliography is limited to Italian territory, though the reader will find some references to Roman architecture from wider Mediterranean territories that Rome controlled by the mid-2nd century. Furthermore, the study of Republican architecture is necessarily tied to archaeological excavations, yet this is not a bibliography of Roman archaeology. Thus, although some seminal studies of individual monuments and excavations appear, most works are on the discipline of architectural history and questions related to it, rather than on sites and their excavation. More so than for the period of the Empire, the study of Republican architecture has been dominated by Italian scholarship, with some important work by French and German scholars. Anglophone interest has been infrequent until recently, so scholarship in English presents only a spotty picture of the state of the field. This bibliography is purposefully focused on English-language scholarship, but for some areas, works in foreign languages are essential for study beyond introductory material.
{"title":"Roman Republican Architecture","authors":"Johnny Hopkins","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190922467-0026","url":null,"abstract":"The designation “Republican” refers to the Roman political period, traditionally dated between 509 and 31 bce. Roman Republican architecture is understood as the product of the built environment in the city of Rome as well as the territory controlled by Romans during this period. Scholarship on Roman architecture in general has focused on building typology; structure, materials, and construction techniques; and design and urbanism—all frequently with an interest in historical context. The study of the Republic has incorporated these traditions, but analysis of the physical remains is often restricted, due to the much degraded state of many early monuments; thus, critical study of ancient textual sources is often crucial, and study of the historical or cultural context of architecture sees increased attention. There is an equally strong—and recently deepened—interest in sociologically and anthropologically informed study of the use and experience of architecture and its effects on Roman society. The best-known aspects of architecture from the period include the construction of monumental temples in stone and terracotta at first, and later incorporating stone entablatures, roofs, and eventually concrete from foundations to superstructure. As for the geographical extent of Roman territory (both political and cultural), it was rarely static and in some cases is poorly understood; furthermore, Romans were frequently in contact with communities and cultures around them, so in some cases it is essential to look outside of Roman territory to understand Roman Republican-era architecture. This bibliography is not meant as a digest of buildings, but rather, after General Overviews and Reference Works, it covers various important topics in the field. As a whole, though, the citations have been assembled in a way that there should be at least one key source on most of the major monuments of the Roman Republic. The bibliography is limited to Italian territory, though the reader will find some references to Roman architecture from wider Mediterranean territories that Rome controlled by the mid-2nd century. Furthermore, the study of Republican architecture is necessarily tied to archaeological excavations, yet this is not a bibliography of Roman archaeology. Thus, although some seminal studies of individual monuments and excavations appear, most works are on the discipline of architectural history and questions related to it, rather than on sites and their excavation. More so than for the period of the Empire, the study of Republican architecture has been dominated by Italian scholarship, with some important work by French and German scholars. Anglophone interest has been infrequent until recently, so scholarship in English presents only a spotty picture of the state of the field. This bibliography is purposefully focused on English-language scholarship, but for some areas, works in foreign languages are essential for study beyond introductory material.","PeriodicalId":381256,"journal":{"name":"Architecture, Planning, and Preservation","volume":"1998 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123898350","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：