Venturi Architecture as Signs

8/12/2019 Venturi Architecture as Signs

1/23

Architecture as Signs and SystemsFor a Mannerist TImeRobert Venturi Denise Scott Brown

THE BELKN P PRESS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS LONDON ENGLAND 2 4


2/23

RV:Art & Arch e J , re LibraryWashington u:'li \ / (H si yCampus Box 1,):51ne Brookin18 Dr.st Lg\li,s, !.:0 &:n:W-4S99

DSB:

RV, DSB:Copyright e 2004 by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown

ll rights reservedPrinted in Italy

Book Design by Peter Holm, Sterling Hill ProductionsLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataVenturi, Robert.Architecture as and systems: for a mannerist time Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown.p. em. - (The William E.Massey, Sr. lectures in the history of American civilization)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-674-01571-1 (alk. paper)1. Symbolism in architecture. 2. Communication in architectural design. I. Scott Brown, Denise, 1931- II. Title. ill. Series.NA2500.V45 2004nO .I-dc22 200404{ 313


3/23

ttext, forshow his

l them nlied thatle most of'espitemyto e anme of our9 studies,

mth theseecause if I1geswon'tthe com-:tronger-

::ople who. work andlity to the

rchitecture as Sign rather than SpaceNew Mannerism rather than ld xpressionism

ROBERT VENTURI


4/23

...-

mghai China. 2003-and for Shanghai, the mul. today, and tomorrow! Thisof LED media, juxtaposingnbolic, and graphic images ating. Each is a loft ami a toweribility where dramatic fanfarehy rather than from formal

1 f : , " " m X ~ i ' / I I 1 o i l l l l l ' l . I - A - I i . X == .: ,\tW /; 3 m$f'f ' ,U:; :Ii:: =,\\7 ::!;:lL.t.1D"?:f-,n:::::i:::-1'"~

-A New Mannerism for Architecture as SignSo here is complexity and contradiction as mannerism, or mannerism asthe complexity and contradiction of today-in either case, today it's mannerism, not Modernism.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, an aesthetic revolutionmade sense via a Modern architectUre that was a stylistic adaptation of acurrent vernacular/industrial way of building-just as in the mid-fifteenth century an aesthetic revolution made sense via a RenaissancearchitectUre that was a stylistic revival of an ancient vocabulary, that ofRoman architecture. At the same time, in the Modernist style an industrial vocabulary was paradoxically accommodated within an abstract aesthetic, just as in the Renaissance style a pagan/Classical vocabulary wasparadoxically accommodated within an explicitly Christian culture. Andcan it now be said that an aesthetic evolution makes sense at the beginning of the twenty-first century, engaging a mannerist architectureevolved from the preceeding style, that of classic Modernism-just as anaesthetic evolution made sense in the mid-sixteenth century engaging amannerist architectUre evolved from the preceeding style, that of HighRenaissance?

In Complexity nd Contradiction in rchitecture I referred toa complex architecture, with its attendant contradictions, [as] not onlya reaction to the banality or prettiness of current architecture. It [canalso represent an] attitude common in ... mannerist periods [and canalso be] a continuous strain among diverse architects [in history].Today this attitude is again relevant to both the medium of architecture and the program in architecture. First, the medium of architecture must be re-examined the increased scope of our architecture aswell as the complexityof its goals is to be expressed. Simplified formsor superficially complex forms will not work. Instead, the varietyinherent in the ambiguity of visual perception must once more be

A New Mannerism, for rchitecture as Sign I ]3Jj


5/23

74 I Robert Venturi

acknowledged and exploited. Second, the growing complexities ofour functional programs must be acknowledged.l

In that work, I described, through comparative analysis, historicalexamples of mannerist architecture, explicit and implicit, that ac1mowl-edge complexity and contradiction in their composition, but I did notprescribe a resultant architecture for the time. This lack of prescriptionwas noted by Alan Chimacoff and Alan Plattus as positive in their essayin The rchitectural Record of September 1983 2 But here and now,through a reconsideration of complexity and contradiction as it currentlyevolves, I wish to prescribe a specific direction, if not a style-that ofArchitecture as Sign-and describe a specific manner, that of mannerism,explicitly appropriate for our time. I shall rely again here on analyses ofhistorical examples of mannerist architecture and urbanism-plus oneexample of our own work-to verify and clarify the evolutionary idea ofmannerism and the complexity and contradict ion it inherently embraces.

WHAT IS MANNERISMMannerism-not discovered or ac1mowledged as a style until the midnineteenth century-is, according to Nikolaus Pevsner, indeed full ofmannerisms. ) And it is by definition hard to define: Arnold Hauser haswritten, It can be rightly complained that there is no such thing as aclear and exhaustive definition of mannerism.''4 s not that an appropriateacknowledgment for our own era-exemplified by multiculUIralism andy technologies evolving by leaps and bounds? But here is my attempt ata definition of mannerism in architecture appropriate for now:

Mannerism as Convention Tweaked-or as Modified ConventionAcknowledging Ambiguity. Mannerism for arch itecture of our timethat acknowledges conventional order rather than original expression but breaks the conventional o rder to accommodate complexityand contradiction and thereby engages atn biguit y-engage s atnbiguity unatnbiguously. Mannerism as complexity and contradictionapplied to convention-as acknowledging a conventional order tha tis then modified or broken to accommodate valid exceptions and

acknowledge unruplenty and conmacknowledging aorder so as to be (

These characteristicsappropriate for toda)convention as ordinar

So convention, systthe first place beforeracy's tendency to br


6/23

growing complexities ofedged.lnparative analysis, historicalt and implicit, that acknowlr composition, but I did notme. This lack of prescriptionIttus as positive in their essay1983.2 But here and nowd contradiction as it currendy

:ction, if not a style-that oflC manner, that of mannerism,

~ l y again here on analyses ofme and urbanism-plus onelarify the evolutionary idea ofliction it inherendy embraces.ISMIged as a style until the mid)laus Pevsner, "indeed full ofto define: Arnold Hauser hasit there is no such thing as am.4 Is not that an appropriateHfied by multicn1turalism and:lds? But here is my attempt atappropriate for now:Ir as Modified Conventionfor architecture of our time-ather than original expreso accommodate complexityambiguity-engages ambimplexity and contradictionIg a conventional order tha tIodate valid exceptions and

acknowledge unambiguous ambiguities for an evolving era of complexity and contradiction-rather than acknowledging no order oracknowledging a totality of exceptions or acknowledging a neworder so as to be original.

These characteristics are what can distinguish a mannerist approachappropriate for today from a N eomodernist .approach, which abhorsconvention as ordinary and adores originality as anything to be different.So convention, system, order, genericness, m nners must be there in

the first place before they can be broken-think of the British aristocracy's tendency to break the rules of etiquette in order to imply confidence about knowing them so well and therefore ease in not followingthem consistendy. Later I shall describe what I consider a parallel mannerist trend in British architecture throughout its history.

It is certainly significant that the most vivid manifestation of mannerism occurs immediately after the High Renaissance, where convention as a style was most explicit and therefore most vividly breakable. Sohere is a definition of mannerism where convention is inherent but atrimes given up on and made thereby exceptionally unconventional-adefinition that does not involve originality or revolution, which is forour rime a bore. Here is a list of elements of a mannerist architecturethat acknowledges and accommodates the complexity and contradictionof today (appropriately, in no order except alphabetical):

AccommodationAmbiguityBoredom'Both-andBreaksChaosComplexityContradictionContrastConvention brokenDeviations

A ew Mannerism, for Architecture as Sign I 15


7/23

7 obert enturi

Difficult wholeDiscontinuityDisorderDissonanceDistortionDiversityDualitiesDumbnessEclecticEverydayExceptionsGeneric brokenImbalanceInconsistencyIncorrectInflectionIronyJumps n scaleJuxtapositionsLayeringMeaningMonotonyNaiveteObscurityOrdinaryParadoxPluralismPopPragmatismRealityScales plural)SophisticationSyncopationTension

.. .:;

TerribilitliVernacularWitWrestling

I refer here not to tlnture, for example, whichmatique inconsistency ofwhich ends up as abstraconcerning what mannel

ContortedExcessiveIdeologicalManneredMinimalistPicturesquePoliteWillful

There are two kindsacknowledged: Explic it 3 Jular style of a particularItaly in its purest and pre,be pure and spelled thespelled with a small m, re:in varying historical eraseither naive or sophisticat

Explicit Mannerism is ,Giulio Romano, acknowlBut it also embraces the arImplicit mannerism I alsoteristic of much English :Lutyens or was he explicarchitecture, from Glouce:


8/23

lI' -

TerribiliclVernacularWItWrestling

I refer here not to the total inconsistency of recent Decon architecture, for example, which ends up as total consistency, and not to the dra-matique inconsistency of current Neomodern architecture, for example,which ends up s abstract sculpture. So here is a further list of notesconcerning what mannerism is not

ContortedExcessiveIdeologicalManneredMinimalistPicturesquePolite

illfulThere are two kinds of mannerism in architecture that can be

acknowledged: Explicit and Implicit. Explicit might refer to the particular style of a particular period, that of the mid-sixteenth century inItaly in its purest and predominant form to the extent mannerism canbe pure and spelled therefore with a capital M. Implicit mannerism,spelled with a small m, refers to what can be called traces of mannerismin varying historical eras and varying places and can be interpreted seither n:ilve or sophisticated in its manifestation.

Explicit Mannerism is exemplified in the sixteenth-century work ofGiulio Romano, acknowledged as tbe Manneri st architect by historians.But it also embraces the architectural work of Michelangelo and Palladio.Implicit mannerism I also find to be an enduring and endearing characteristic of much English architecture, from Late Gothic to Sir EdwinLutyens--or was he explicit? This is why I adore and learn from Englisharchitecture, from Gloucester Cathedral to Lutyens' manor houses.

A New Mannerism. for rchitecture as Sign I 77


9/23

123. Hardwick Hall, Chesterfield, England.

125,126.Sir ChristopherWren s st Paul sCathedral, London.

signage at the scale of biJnaive or sophisticated? IsLongleat House, Montae

Inigo Jones' St. Paul's, Ctemple, whose incorrect

Saint (rather than Sir) Cwhose ultimate Baroqueincorrect/ambiguous pelAnd Saint Stephen's Wa :bine convention and oril

122. Gloucester Cathedral, Gloucester, England.

124. Inigo Jones St. Paul s Church, Covent Garden,London.

78 I Robert Venturi

IMPLI IT MANNERISM EXAMPLESWhat I am describing as a mannerism to evolve via complexity and con-tradiction for our time is more on the explicit side than the implicitside it is more capital Moriented than small m. But I shall first reviewsome historical examples of implicit mannerist precedent in England thatI have subjectively chosen many of which were illustrated as examplesof complexity and contradiction in Complexity nd Contradiction

Gloucester Cathedral, whose buttresses expressed within the wallsof the nave are essentially structural and horrendously incorrect,within the hyper-rational architectural order that is Gothic.

The architecture of most Elizabethan and Jacobean manor houses,whose tense compositions embrace bearing walls that consist mostlyof window openings, as well as compositional dualities, iconographic


10/23

: EX MPLES;:volve via complexity and con-explicit side than the implicit;mall m. But I shall first reviewerist precedent in England that::h were illustrated as examplesexity and Contradictionexpressed within the walls.horrendously incorrect,,rder that is Gothic.IJacobean manor houses,9 walls that consist mosdy

onal dualities, iconographic

125,126,Sir Christopher 127 Sir Christopher Wren sSt. Stephen s Walbrook,Wren s St. Paul s London.Cathedral, London.

signage at the scale of billboards, and stylistic ambiguities. Are theynaive or sophisticated? Is this Late Gothic or Early Renaissance, as atLongleat House, Montacute House, Hardwick Hall, Hatfield House?

Inigo Jones' St. Paul's, Coven t Garden, an adorable church as atemple, whose incorrect Classical proportions create sublime tension.

Saint (rather than Sir) Christopher Wren: viv St. Paul's Cathedral,whose ultimate Baroque dome and drum are supported by a kind ofincorrect/ambiguous pendentives inside (naive nd sophisticated?)!And Saint Stephen's Walbrook, whose similar configurations com-bine convention and originality to create tension!

A ew Mannerism for Archiceccure as Sign I 9


11/23

JI .II

~

128. Nicholas Hawksmoor s Christ Church, Spltalfields 129. Nicholas Hawksmoor s St. George s, Bloomsbury, London.London.V - .._ ...-,.,.:. _ .-r1. . , , '

l . . OJ. . , .o c ~ . ~ ~ ~ _ ~

>t; . .. ,I I ~ " ; ~ . _0~ 1 I 1 1 1 ; ; u ; ~ . . ; . ~ ~ & 1 l 3 i ~ _ l t l l i l r a i ~ " I l 1 ' .

The u ~ a d e of i c h o l a ~a f u ~ d e or is it a towerrical classical temple bu

Sir John Vanbrugh's Bfirst day in Europe. 01or a dilatory pediment Sir John Soane's a r c h ehanging rather than su

Similar analyses can bttheir vocabularies but vaLmasters like that of Willand Lutyens. And couldexplicit Mannerists?

Other examples not Esmall m:

The longitudinal elevaFrancesco Borrornini's :of the Palazzo di Propapose dualities that are tof the hall as they spati:

Luigi Moretti's Casa deltion of Rome, via the dlit one building or two? Jinflection atop each of l

The plans of Guarino CImmaculate ConceptionVaccaro's San Gregorioeach composes at once {

Alvar Aalto's church in, 'involving a conventionalwell as contradictory lay

130. Sir John Vanbrugh s Blenheim Palace, Woodstock, England 131. Sir John Soane s House and Museum, London.

80 I Robert Venturi


12/23

lrge s, Bloomsbury, London.

4useum, London.

The fa


13/23

10 1 0 1 H

_ . : l=r-7 :: \.-_ - _

10

135. Guarino Guarini s Church of the Immaculate Conception. Turin, Italv.

134. Luigi Moretti s Casa del Girasc

136. Giuseppe Vaccaro s San Gregorio Barbarigo, Rome.

82 1 obert Vemuri


14/23

1 fl

(I, ., .. .--J , ' ' "( 1ff'K . )1-~ illI-J .... /l .; . ........

137 138. Alvar Aalto s church in Vuoksenniska,Imatta, Finland.

A New Mannerism. for Architecture as Si9n I 83

134. Luigi Moretti s Casa del Girasole, Rome.


15/23

140. Cathedral, Cefalu, Sicily.

139. Church of the Jacobins, Toulouse, France.

141 McKim, Mead White s Low House, Bristol, Rhode Island.

84 I Robert Venturi

The Gothic church of tlcolumns/piers marchingit an example par exce t

The mosaic figure of CCefalu it is eloquently

The slopes of the pedinof McKim, Mead Wlthe long elevations andbut the house as iconic:

And the work of Frankas n the PennsylvaniaBank for the Republic idemolished for being

And Armando Brasini'sSantissima n Rome, fudynamic classical compits name is too long.

And finally the ultimateTokyo itself, whose aestdemolitions and its evolexemplary city of todayl


16/23

and.

The Gothic church of the Jacobins in Toulouse, whose row ofcolumns/piers marching mysteriously up the center of the nave makeit an example par excellence of duality and of ambiguous beauty.

The mosaic figure of Christ in the apse of the cathedral inCefalu it is eloquently too big.

The slopes of the pedirnented roof of the Low House, an early workof McKim, Mead & "White in Bristol, Rhode Island, which occur onthe long elevations and therefore on the "wrong" sides of the house,but the house as iconic shelter is thereby eloquently enhanced.

And the work of Frank Furness, teeming with ambiguous dualities,as in the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and the NationalBank for the Republic in Philadelphia. Much of his other work wasdemolished for being mannerist?

And Armando Brasini's Church of the Cuore Irnmacolato di MariaSantissirna in Rome, full of "too muches" and "too littles" in itsdynamic classical composition inside and out not to mention thatits name is too long.

And finally the ultimate example of mannerist urbanism the city ofTokyo itself, whose aesthetic of chaos derives from its revolutionarydemolitions and its evolutionary multiculturalism, making it anexemplary city of today

I .I l II';iI

c . _: ~ m.r 1 ~i ~ / ~ i . .-,. ~ J ~ J . .. ' . . I ' .142. Frank Furness s Pennsylvania Academy ofFIne Arts, Philadelphia.

143. Frank Furness s National Bank of theRepublic, Philadelphia.144. Armando Brasini s Church of the CuoreImmacolato i Maria Santissima, Rome.

A New Mannerism, {or Architecrure s Sign I 8


17/23

EXPLICIT MANNERISM EX MPLESHere are some historical examples of explicit Mannerist precedent thatI consider relevant and that turn me on -many of which also wereillustrated as examples of complexity and contradiction in Complexityand Contradiction

First of all the architectural work of Michelangelo, whom I love themost and learn the most from, and whose architectural work in the six-teen th century, along with Palladio s, I consider explicitly Mannerist. Ican refer to the rear fa


18/23

EX MPLEScit Mannerist precedent that

l -many of which also were:l contradiction in omplexity

fichelangelo whom I love the. architectural work in the six-msider explicitly Mannerist. Iwith its grand scale confirmeds false attic windows whichnt pilasters; to the LaurentianOIlS individually niched wit in

147, 148. Michelangelo s Laurentian Library,Florence.

the wall and whose vestibule is a room and a staircase at the same time;to the f ~ d e s of the facing buildings of the Capitoline Hill whichthrou gh their giant and minor orders glorify vagaries of scale and createhumane monumentality; to the Sforza Chapel in Santa Maria Maggioreeach of whose side walls as a niche via its huge radius in plan makes thespace by implication expand beyond itself and the space is therefore per-ceived as bigger than it is and therefore as a monumental as well as asmall space; to the Porta Pia with its varying combinations of scales and

A New nnerism for Architecture s Si9n I 8


19/23

;Ji .

- I \

':0' Cu_V :::0 c:Qj 5:cc:' j ';c::: 0ex:::E

a OO


20/23

ale&

raN5Vi

Z


21/23

153, 154. Michelangelo s Porta Pia, Rome.

symbols and distorted comof my controversial book c

And then there is Pallaarchitectural good manneMannerism via his palacesa Mannerist period. Howfront f ~ d e of the gloriou:defined not by the machodefines the typical rhythmsmall-scale elements a mand a statue in relief as a 1all but one of the five Osmaller n size than the tillto the three stories of therather than more delicatereversing this convention i

155. Andrea Palladio s Palazzo Valmaran9 I Robert enturi


22/23

symbols and distorted conventions of vocabulary illustrated on the coverof my controversial book of thirty-eight years ago.

And then there is Palladio known throughout history more for hisarchitectural good manners via his writings and his villas than for hisMannerism via his palaces and churches. But to me he is a Mannerist ina Mannerist period. How else can you acknowledge the corner of thefront fa


23/23

92 I Robert Venturi

And then there are the front f a ~ a d e s of two of Palladia's churches inVenice San Giorgio Maggiore and n Redentore teerning with com-plexities and contradictions that are valid. n each case here is a Christianchurch whose interior is based on a Roman basilica (a law court) and whoseexterior is based on a Roman temple or is it a juxtaposition of temples?And the combination of basilica and temple(s) makes for beautifully weirdjuxtapositions and layerings on the front, where each side of the basilican

f a ~ a d e becomes a bisected fragment of a pedimented temple and where thebuttresses of the interior vault become other kinds of fragments of templepediments. And then the temple's front columns become pilasters of var-ious scales on a wall, and the entrance becomes another little temple ~ d ejuxtaposed upon the center. And then the way that some of these elements,involving forms, symbols, and scales, hit the ground, combining bases, nobases, and steps, makes for other elements of architectural wonder in aMannerist period the Italian sixteenth century

158. Traditional Japanese interior. 159. Japanese Buddhist Temple.

MANNERIST ARCHITTOMORROW'S MULTIAN ARCHITECTURE

A mannerist architeclJapan whose historimalism, exemplifiedshipped and promotealso Buddhist campI.ignored by Modernisthere is not only a midictory aesthetic noexplicitly symbol ic

A mannerist architfrom Tokyo a city aorder. So we go fromrebuilt in the lastgrandeur and evoluti

t . . E A ~ ~ 1 'jfzn.- 0 / k.

Venturi Architecture as Signs

Documents

Transcript of Venturi Architecture as Signs