Architecture, ornament and pictorialism: notes on the relationship between the arts from Wélfflin to Le Corbusier Alina Payne In his seminal volume Architecture in Italy 1500-1600 of 1974, Wolfgang Lotz characterized Galeazzo Alessi’s work at the Palazzo Marini in Milan as “pictorial (Fig. 3.) He did not elaborate on this statement, yet it was patently, clear that the label was attached to Alessi’s treatment of ornament:' Indeed, Lotz described his ornament to be ‘drowning the structure’ and found the ‘origins of this ‘painterly architecture’ in the Raphael circle in Rome, The ‘rend, he concluded (epitomized at mid-century by Pirro Ligorio’s exuberant facades) yielded to the more austere style of Michelangelo and Vignola, but in Lombasdy ‘with its innate love of lavish decoration of tat surfaces, it flourished’ * He had already acknowledged as much at the Galeazzo Alessi ‘convegno in Genova where after drawing attention to Alessi’s imovative urban solutions and palace designs as ‘autonomous {read, free-standing] structures’ he had admitted perplexity before the ‘pictorialism of the sculpted wall’ in the Milanese work? Such an evaluation was no isolated phenomenon, raised by the ceuvre of 2 difficult architect. In his 1975 monograph on Palladio, Lionello Pupp: had. ‘used the same term — pictorial - to define the architect's Inte work. The same association with ornament was evident here, too. When discussing the heavily sculpted wall of Polladio’s Vicentine palaces of the 1550s and 6os \seppo Porto, Barbaranno, the Loggia del Capitaniato), Puppi described it as an example of ‘exaggerated pictorialism’ (Fig. 3.2). Here too the pejorative was only just below the surface: encountering difficulty in reconciling such excesses with the spare vocabulary of Palladio's earlier villas ~ of the ‘ner classical’ Palladio - he attempted to reduce their importance by desctibing them as ‘minor works’ or works where the circumstances of the commission had not allowed the architect's true intentions to come through.* Atone level the meaning behind these statements is plain enough: Alessi's and Palladio’s deep carving of the facades and their scattering of ornamentalAlina Payne 55° 34. Andrea Palladio, Loggia del Capttanisto, detail, Vicenza56 THE BUILT SUREACE VOLUME 2 32. Galenazo Alessi, Palazzo Mazin, courtyard, Milan devices such as herms, brackets, shells, niches, broken pediments ete. created f shimmering chiaroscuro sasface that could be construed as ‘pictorial’ However, though true, these were nevertheless loaced statements, for in associating ornament with the immortal malersch of Heinrich Wolfflin, Lotz ‘and Puppi had essentially defined these works as aberract in their protagonist's ceuvre (Alessi’s in Milan, Palladio's ultima maniera) and therefore dismissed them without using as much as a single pejorative term. That omament had been on the architecture index for some time is a well- know fact. Indeed, at the tur of the century st had risen to prominence in the arenas of architectural production, theory, and criticism and ignited debates only to be dismissed altogether from the modemist project. Yet the pejorative association of painting with omnament is perhaps less easy to understand. Judging from the examples cited above, it seems that it is precisely its ‘painterliness’ that made ornament objectionable, end positioned itoutside true architecture. But why should the association of ornament with painting be construed as such a powerful pejorative? Afterall, the mutual relationship between architecture and painting had always been viewedAlina Payne 57° positively. Indeed, the three visual ats had traditionally come together under the single umbrella of the academy (the Renaissance academies del disegno and later the Ecole des Beaux-Arts), that is, they were brought under the gis of the same institution, a fact which openly acknowledged their harmonious and stimulating cohabitation. Moreover, even when the Ecole-ype of teaching lost ground, the basic association ofthe sister arts continued to be enacted by such modem school icons as the Bauhaus. In his seminal Space, Time and Architecture of 1941 Sigfried Giedion himself consecrated this association when he presented painting and architecture as mutually reinforcing instruments to explore and display the essential structures of life as intuited by science. Yet the very fact that painting and its practices should elicit such a range of responses among historian and critics suggests and records a more complex situation ~ and one that hints at an effort to (re)position architecture within the arts. When this re-alignment occurred, how the issue was formulated and, most importantly, where the debate was located are the questions this essay will rise The debate on malerisch ‘The term painterly (mlerisch) - especially its application to architecture ~ was challenged almost as soon as it was formulated. Indeed, this turning point in the relationship of architecture and painting was actually articulated in a debate, In 1888 Heinrich Wolfflin had published his momentous re- evaluation of the Baroque as Renaissance und Barock. Eine Untersuchung iber das Wesen und Entstehung des Barockstls in Lalen. The principal features of the text and perhaps its most lasting bequest to generations of art historians ~ ‘were the characteristic categories he identified for each period style. Malersck ‘was central among them: according to Wélffin it was the defining featare of the Baroque, a meta-category that applied to all the aris, architecture included. ‘As there exists a painterly architecture, there is also a painterly sculpture; even painting distinguishes a painterly period in its own history.” Yet, although he dealt with all the arts, Wellin imperceptibly privileged architecture. Not only was architecture his main (and first) example Allustrating the stylistic shift from Renaissance to Baroque, it also accounted for all the images he included in the text (Fig. 33). Indeed, the opening sentence of the book set out the concept of painterliness with reference to architecture: ‘Art historians agree that the most important feature of Baroque architecture is its painterly character. The att of building abandons its characteristic nature and seeks effects that belong to another art: it becomes painterly.” Although a term of some currency, malerisch was not sufficiently defined in WOllfin’s view, and he set out to fill this gap. According to him the58° THE SUIT SURFACE VOLUME 2 3. Fragment ofa Frieze, Gizeh Museum Ilustation from Alois Riegl Spltinische Kinstindustrie, goa illusion (representation) of movement was the principal feature of the painterly style and it depended on effects of light and shade, of mass rather than linearity of infinite extension and rejection of rules (eg. oblique viewing angles)! [Leas than ten years later, in 3896, and again in x897, in his books Zur Frage nuach dem Malerschen and Barock und Rokoko, eine Auseinandersetzung ier das ‘Malerische in der Architektur, August Schmarsow picked up Wélfflin’s category and used it asa starting point to investigate the mutual relationship between the visual arts. Under the influence of Adolf von Hildebrand’s Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst (Baden-Baden, 1893), which took an intense look at form-making, especially as it pertained to sculpture, and in the tradition of such @ monument of German criticism as GE. Lessing's Laokoon, oder Uber te Grenzen der Malerei und Poesie, Schmarsow wished to draw attention to the characteristic features of the individual arts. Not unlike Woltflin, Hildebrand had also found a single, all-embracing impulse driving all the arts, Archilekionisch was his term and the similarity between sculpture and architecture in creating form ~ Daseinsform (actual form) and Wirkangsform (effective form) ~ was his particular focus? For Schmarsow, any attempt to treat all arts as the result of a single aesthetic impulse ~ whether spatial as in Hildebrand’ case or pictorial as in ‘Wolfflin’s case ~ illustrated a teend that needed to be reviewed. Not disputing overlaps between the arts, he nevertheless wished to re-establish a discourseAlina Payse 59 ‘hat acknowledged their distinct identities, the better to understand their ‘mutual relationship ® Most important, he wanted to resist the effects of the then current empathy theory that exalted anthropomorphism and apperception, and that increasingly led critics and att historians to blur the boundaries between the arts.” Schmarsow put it down to the persistence of the ‘plasisches Iden!” associated with the equally persistent fascination with ancient art. Earlier he had pointed to the impact of the Pergamon altar recently brought to Berlin —and to the series of works on relief sculpture from the 1880s that had popularized the concept of pictorial relief* For him the category malerisch seemed central to such a confusion of concepts (Begriffverirrung’), and therefore in urgent need of ceevaluation (Fig. 3.4)" Architecture became Schmarsow's principal target. Neither pictorial nor sculptural, for him it was essentially the art of shaping space." W6lfflin, who defined architecture as ‘the art of solid [physical] forms’ (‘die Kunst Inirperichen’ Masser’) naturally came under attack." So did Burckhardt (Weléfin’s teacher}, whom Schmarsow saw as the originator of the analogy between architecture and orgamc forms." For Schmarsow, the analogy body (organism)/building and the ensuing anthropomorghism was faulty, and was only appropriate to sculpture (‘Kerperbildnerin’), not architecture, for it does not account for its spatial qualities.” Indeed, he posited the view that it 3.4 Pergamon Altar, view(60 THe DUILT SURFACE VOLUME 2 ‘may be precisely this shift from an organismic conception of architecture to cone that recognizes it as a phenomenon of crystallization ~ typical of inorganic matter, producing ‘rigid stereometric spatial objects’ (‘starres stereometrische Raumgebild’) ~ and therefore alien to the experience of the ‘warm, living body’ that lies at the root of the real thread developing from. antiquity to the present" As a result he attacked the psychology-based empathy theory ~ he quoted Vischer, Volkelt, Lotze, Wundt, but Wolfflin was, the real target ~ that was fundamentally dependent on anthropomorphism as its jumping off point.” Although he himself subscribed to a psychclogy- ‘based methodology and promoted a synthesis between sensory experience and spatial imagiretion, these scholars, he argued, missed out on a fundamental characteristic of architecture by shifting its discourse into that of sculpture® All architectonic forms, even the columns, beams etc, he continued, remain in the domain of abstraction and resist direct equivalence ‘with human limbs (menibers)-" In the final analysis, for Schmarsow the issue ‘was one of figure and ground: the essence of architecture is not its solids but the voids they shape. Even more revohitionary was Schmarsow’s resulting conception of period style. Again he took on Wélfflin ~ and mutatis mutandis Semper ~ who hhad argued that the birthplace of a new style lay sn ornament In his view the Formgefill (Feeling for form) was not the determinant feature of a new style but rather the Raumgefal (feeling for space), even though (he agreed) it ‘may first make itself felt in decoration (Detoration). ‘Asif the activity of the architect, he argued, ‘started with the development and evaluation of architectural members, whereas it is clear that the foundation of all architectural styles, the common root of all architecture, must be sought in the formation of space.”" And, upsetting a tradition that went back to Vitruvius and beyond, in liew of the traditional definition of architectural styles according to the columnar orders, Schmarsow proposed a new taxonomy based on Rawmstile (spatial styles) * ‘In his Barock und Rokoka of the following year (1897) Schmarsow returned to these issues and reinforced them by moving in on Woliflin’s own territory and working with one art (architecture) and one historical period (Baroque/Rococo). Indeed, his subtitle is very specific in defining his target: Eine kritische Auseinandersetzumg tiber das Maleriscse in der Architektur (‘A ctitical argument on the painterly in architecture’) Armed with specific amples he again takes on the fallacies of malerisch, its ambiguities (indeterminacy) and the scholarly prejudices that privilege it Instead of allowing malerisch to become the category through which all art is evaluated, he argues, the business of art history is to examine the reciprocal relationship between the ars in order to understand the true character of stylistic periods. For such analyses to be at ali possible, the individual identities andAlina Payne 61 peculiarities of the arts must be well understood. In his Renaissance und Barock, Wélflin was forced to admit that one term catthot suificlently describe Baroque art, Scimarsow triumphantly notes, yet he nevertheless persisted in his definition of the new style as a transition from ‘severity to freedom and painterliness, from form to formlessness’ ® Ultimately, Schmarsow’s conclusion is not one inimical to painting. Rather, he asks scholars to recast the question: not to ask how painterly architecture may be, but to ask what role painting played in the stylistic definition of a historical period. Throughout, his definition of architecture as spatially determined remains unchanged. Riegl and the carpet analogy In the same period when Schmarsow was taking on Wliflin’s definition of the painterly, the better to draw attention to the spatial characteristics of architecture, Alois Riegl proposed his own variation on this theme. Ever since Stifragen of 1893, his work had been concemed with Kunstwollen and therefore with what brings the arts together (as the driving impulse behind them), rather than what sets them apart. This project culminated with the publication of Spatromische Kunstindustrie in 1901 Although all arts shared fundamental characteristics in a given historical period, Riegl identified architecture and the decorative arts as the most representative of a particular Kunstanlten.* Thus, in his view, in late antique art they displayed most powerfully & colouristic (Kolorismus) conception of the work Although Riegl’s term ‘colousistic’ was not interchangeable with Woliflin’s ‘pictorial, both notions shared a reference to painting and its characteristic practices, particularly to the concem with patterns of light and shade and relationships of figure and ground Fig. 35). ‘That Riegl should privilege @ pictorial lens through which to examine architecture was no coincidence catised by the particular features of late antique art. Indeed, such a prejudice was already apparent in his work of 1897/9 ~ published posthumously under the title Historische Grammatik der bildenden Kinste- that is, in the lectures he gave at the University of Vienna in precisely the same years when Schmarsow was publishing his response to ‘Woflin In these lectures Riegl sought to establish his Kunstwollen concept as the true foundation for the new Kunstwissenschaf (science of art) and to do so he needed to identify a set number of furndamental features that, once tested against all the arts in a given time-frame, could heip identify and define the specific character of a single, overarching artistic impulse. Neither Sernper’s proposal of materials and fabrication techriques as the foundations for all art-making, nor the more recent malerisch (painteriy} and62 TH BUILT SURFACE VOLUME 2 35, Marble Capital, $. Viale, Ravenna, Ilustyation from Alois Riel Spitrmische Kunstindustrie, 1901 plastisch (sculptural) explanation of art sufficed in his view. Nor did the angwer lie, he argued with a ricochet to Schmarsow, in investigations of the individual arts.” Only their common elements or laws could provide the necessary insight. And for Rigg} these were: use (Ziect}, material, technique, ‘motif (content), and, finally, form and plane The emphasis on plane and form - the only formal categories included in this list ~ already indicates a fundamentally different conception from Schmarsow’s, whose definition of architecture as the art of shaping space he openly criticized for being too narrow." For Riegl the sculptural relief was the ‘first stage towards a Rewniast (spatial ant) By thus locating the origins of architecture in the plane he could claim that pattern ard the relationships of figure and ground ‘were essential forall the arts and at all times.® Clearly such a move allowed Rieg] to connect the monumental with the decorative arts and, ultimately, to place the latter atthe core of his Kunstwollen theory as its primary signifiers.Alina Payne 63 That the decorative azts lay atthe core of Rieg’s conception of Kunstoollen was noted from the outset. In his Grindbegrife der Kunstwissenschaft of 1905 Schmarsow reminded readers that Rieg’s real starting point was relict sculpture and Kunsigewerbe and argued that he only retroactively applied his findirgs to the other arts, especially to architecture.™’The fact that Riegl used ‘omament, particularly column capitals, to illustrate his argument about ‘colouristic’ architecture, certainly validated such a view. Moreover, the painting/decorative arts/ornament connection embedded in his emphasis con plane and form and on Sgure and ground effects was itself the result of an earlier deep engagement with the decorative arts in the shape of oriental carpets Indeed, the carpet had recently risen to prominence as a test-case for definitions of art anc artistic production and been placed in the foreground of the debate on the identity of the arts by Rieg! himself in his Stilfragen of 1893. Of course, in 80 doing he was responding to Semper who, in 3860, had first set architectural theory on its head by proposing that the woven fabric, the carpet, had been the prototype for architectural form instead of the traditional Viteuvian tectonic medel™ ‘Though engaging Semper’s material-based theory, Riegl twisted the discussion into another direction. For Rieg] the carpet was not an example of fabrication, of manipulation by the hand, tied into an anthropological explication of the development of shelter-making as it had been for Semper. Instead, he looked at the carpet as a decorative, painting-like surface, displaying a will-to-form that reached all artistic production and manifested ifself in the predilection for a particular range of decorative motifs (eg, arabesques, tends, palmettes etc) (Fig. 3.6) Certainly, Riegl attempted to correct the Semperian view of the development of ornament, and his argument ultimately was a negative ore. ‘After a careful historical investigation he was able to show that the family of 36. Bender from a Persian Carpet ofthe Safavid period. Itstration from Alois Riegl Sptremische Kunstindustrie, 90164. ‘Hm BUI-T suRRACE VOLUME 2 motifs displayed by carpets and architectural ornament (that had led Semper and his followers to see a cause and effect relationship between the two atts) ‘belonged to different periods, and most importantly, thatthe stone ornament hhad predated the textile one, This enabled him to oppose the theory that materials and fabrication techniques held a determining role for architecture.” However, despite this polemical intent, the features that had first attracted Rieg] to the study of carpets, and allowed him to compare them with architectural motifs, resurfaced in his later work as the key elements for the analysis ofall arts. Thus, the carpet’s patterns translated into his ‘plane and form’ (Fort und Flicke) element, into his interest in figure and ground. and, ultimately, into the Kolorismus feature he identified in late antique art. According to Riegl, this light-and-shadow (colouristic) tapestry effect constituted the principal formal characteristie of late Roman art. Drawing, together architecture, minor arts and sculpture, it testified to @ consistent period Kunstwollen.™ But there was one other facet to Riegl’s argument. Alone among his contemporanies he viewed sculpture as the more primitive art, that predated surface-bound and geometty-based ornament.” itis therefore not surprising that in Spatrimische Kunstindustrie he privileged architectuse and decorative arts as the true indices of Kunstwollen, Their shared feature was ornament. It is here that the laws of Kunstwollen were most clearly perceptible, not in the figural arts (painting end sculpture) where content (Poetic, religious, didactic, patriotic etc) invariably superseded the ‘pure’ manifestation of form preferences. In the debate on the identity of the arts so lucidly formulated by Schmarsow, Rieg] connected architecture with the minor arts (Kunstgewerbe) ~ shortly to become the mass-produced arts ~ and therefore released architecture from its association with sculptute that had driven the empathy-based theories of historians like Wolflin." Riegl did not follow ‘Schmarsow in his attempt to detach architecture fom the other arts and define it ~ prophetically ~ solely in terms of space." Nor did. he forego comament with its painterly associations; indeed it remained at the very core of his thinking. Yet, paradoxically, Riegl relocated architecture among the visual aris in a way that also affected the path of modem architectural {iscourse. Though we have long associated Riegl with a formalist conception of art, by lifting the decorative arts into the foreground and linking them to architecture, he had in fact opened a door that ultimately led to Peter Behrens and the AEG experiments, that 1s, to the Industrickultur of the twentieth century?Alina Payne 65 ‘Modern architecture and painting Historians like Woliflin, Schmarsow, and Riegl were not the only ones to ‘engage the issue of architecture's relationship to painting at the turn of the century. Architects did too. In 1894 Hendrik Berlage published the article ‘Architecture and Impressionism’ in four sequential issues of the Dutch ‘magazine Architectura.® Here he addressed the issue ofthe city, a particularly critical topic as a result of the runaway expansion it was experiencing. Dissatisfied with the results, Berlage pointed to old cities as models: ‘What is the reason for our enthusiasm for views of old cities? What isthe beauty that animates these paintings?” he asked" And, using the anelogy between building cities and painting canvases, he proceeded to develop a theory of painterly architectonic composition. His argument was fundamentally sympathetic to Wolfflin’s painterly theory, for he too identified an architecture that worked s0 successfully as a painting that it existed as ‘a reproach to the painter’ * Discarding picturesque, classical (symmetrical) and romantic strategies he advocated an impressionist mo ‘We are referring toa kind of representation that pays less attention to detail ia itis, subordinate tothe whole) than tothe large, overal effect ~or rather impression ‘This disregard for details does not merit disapproval on the contrary the impressionistic manner of representation is very much a correct one the impressionists also exaggerate and purposely ort things state my conviction that architecture, too, must take that direction * For Berlage, architects have, once again, something to learn from painters: simplicity, moderation, and a concentration on essentials. "The characteristic quality of noble splendour has at all times been moderation.’* Most importantly ‘When designing details, one should exercise the utmost moderation and use a greater richness only in those places that are particularly conspicuous.”* Such an approach also made economic sense: “The architect discovers that he has to use simple but characteristic means in order to create any effect. He should therefore become an impressionist, for only an impressicnist style will make it possible. His final description of the city was entirely pictorial and literally the equivalent of a Monet or a Cailleboite view ofthe Parisian boulevards: “There it stands, the plane of the ‘wall with its grey and red lines, darker on top, cut out against the sky with angular, beautifully simple lines. It makes a splendid, naturally elaborate, multicoloured but quiet background for the motley bustle on the street."* If for Berlage painting not only still supplied a valid design strategy for architecture, but could generally inform the aesthetic of the city, for Adolf Loos the white walls of Zion were the only antidote for Potemkin town, the painted city” Ornament was the target of this dismissive accolade. Like Berlage, Loos also made the connection between ornament and painting, but66 THe pUILT SURFACE vOUIME 2 ‘whereas for Berlage contemporary painting (Impressionism) showed the way oat of the omamental impasse, for Loos any addition to the built surface was the equivalent of body painting and graffiti. Although Loos did not formulate the full argument against ornament and its pictorial associations until 1907 in ‘Ornament and Crime’, most ofthe ideas and images were already present in the series of articles he had published in the Neue Freie Presse between 1868 and 3899 (ane republished some twenty years later as Ins Leete Gesprachen) His well-known tirade against the tattoo ~ or body painting ~ from this period (and re-used in ‘Omament and Crime’) was a direct and deliberate reference to an equally well-known discourse. Immanuel Kant, Gottiried ‘Semper, and most recently, in Loos’s own Vienna, Riegl had used the image of the tattooed Maori to demonstrate the presence of an inborn will-to-art and its deep-seated association with omament (Fig, 37). However, for Loos ‘the urge fo ornament one’s face and everything within reach is the start of plastic art. Itis the baby talk of painting. the modem man who tattoos himself is, either a criminal or a degenerate." Nearly two decades later, the connection between carpet, painting, omament and surface that recurred intermittently from Semper through Riegl to Loos was not lost on Le Corbusier at an important moment in the gestation of his architectural vocabulary. In Apris le cubisme (Paris 1918) he and his partner Amedée Ozenfant used it to construct a polemical argument 3:7. Maori facial tattoos. Illustration from Alois Riel, Spalntnigcke Kunstindustrie, ionAlina Payne 67 against Cubism and set out the goals of Purism.* What is inpottant in this argument is not so much the aesthetic and moral ambitions of the movement ‘thus launched, but its architectonic underpinnings and the powerful critique of Cubist painting as a ‘decorative/omamertal carpet’ By inference, the art of the future, of post-war construction and clarification (‘la guerre finie, tout organise, tout se clarfie et s’épure’) - and this includes architecture — rejects omament and its appeal to pure experience." To be sute, Le Corbusier and ‘Ozenfant were not rejecting ornament for being pictorial; they rejected a particular form of painting for being omamental. Yet a critique of painting, and its too ready conversion into ornament remained embedded im their argument. Indeed, the Purist project was paradoxically a denial of painting, an attempt to reach beyond it, to challenge the limiting two-dimensional surface and to enter the world of architecturally drafted objects. A counterpart to Wolfin’s painterly architecture, this was an architectonic painting, @ painting ‘that abandons its characteristic features and seeks the effects that belong to another art’ as he had so crisply described this phenomenon of transference several decades earlier. Far from being a matter of plane, form, and pattern as it had been for Riegl, for Le Corbusier painting, like architecture, was ‘the magnificent play of forms under light, Architecture is, in everything, sublime or modest, which contains sulficient geometry to establish a mathematical relationship’, ke concluded some seven years later an his Decorative Art of Today ® By 1940 the position was clear. For Sigfried Giedion the feeling for space isthe basis and the strongest impulse for original architectonic creation Working in their studios as though in laboratories, painters ancl sculptors investigated the ways in which space, volumes, and materials existed fr feeling ‘These discoveries offered architecture te objective means of organizing space in ‘ways that gave form to contemparary feelings” Architecture and painting could only meet on the terrain of spatial configurations. If in he 1880s Wolfflin could posit the existence of a painterly style, that is, style whose features, though characteristic to a single art, were recognizable across all artistic production, by the turn of the century, such totalizing readings had begun to be challenged. At the very same time as Art Nouveau dramatized the dissolution of individual artistic media into a single aesthetic experience, the relationship between the arts had become a burning question. (One important terrain where it was being worked out was that of art history. Some, among them Wéllflin, Hildebrand and Riegl, sought to uncover single governing aesthetic impulses across the arts ~ pictorial, sculptural or decorative. Others, like Schmarsow, tried to distinguish between them.68 THE BUILT SURFACE voLAnE 2 Always a somewhat distant third in the triad of the visual arts, architecture ‘was a natural focus for these scholars to test and clemonstrate the validity of their arguments. The practitioners felt a similar pressure, At a moment when architecture's slow but sure move away from the arts towards engineering and the sciences had reached a moment of crisis, its redefinition had become imperative. Omament was a stumbling block in this process of identity construction. Both malerisch and plastisch (as defined by the art historians), sometimes deeply cut and sculptural, sometimes incised, as if drawn on the surface of buildings, likened of old with jewellry and make-up, ornament literally embodied a shared territory between the arts. Moreover, associated, as it was with manual production it could not be reconciled with an architecture that embraced technology. ‘The worlds of art history and architectural theory criticism were not insulated from each other A student of Wélifin's, as familiar with Riegl and. Schmarsow as he was with the writings of architects like Berlage, Loos and Le Corbusier, Giedion acted as a conduit through which categories developed in art history passed wito modem architectural theory.” His own immensely popular book Space, Time and Architecture transformed architectural discourse and redefined architecture for architects and. historians alike. In this new vision, the term ‘painterly’, although harmless on ‘he face oft, when coupled with ornament denoted an architecture that had not entered the chain of steady and cumulative innovation that was to lead to Modernism as to some form of epiphany. Ftom the latter-day perspective of Giedion-inspired architectural theory, Aless’s and Palladio’s innovations, based as they were on omamental configurations rather than spatial relationships, did not mark the right path. Of course neither Lotz nor Puppi stated such a view outright and theit choice of terms had mote to do with a desire to avoid the equally loaded epithet ‘mannerist “ Yet, the fact remained that though the Scylla of Mannerism had been successfully circumnavigated, the Charybdis of ‘pictorial’ omament remained andl disclosed the modesnist underbelly of much Renaissance scholarship. Several decades later, art history sill recorded the moment when architecture had detached itself from the other arts Selected sources Giedion, Sighrieg, Space, Time and Architecture, Cambridge, MA. 1942 Hildebrand, Adolf von, Das Problem der Form in der bilderden Karst Strassburg: 2018 (1st ed, Baden-Baden: 1896) Xeoll, Frank-Lothat, Das Onset in der Kunsttheorie des 19 Jahrhunderts, Hildesheim: 1987Alina Payne 69 Le Corbusier and Amedée Ozenfant, Aprds le eubisme, Pasis: 1:8. Mallgcave, Harry F, ed., Hendrik Petrus Berlage: Thoughts on Style, 1886-1909, ‘Santa Monica: 1996 Ricgl, Alois, Historische Grammatik der bildenden Kurtste, Graz-Kéln. 1966. — Problems of Style. Foundations for « History of Ornament, Princeton: 1995 (translation of Stifragen, 1893) — Spatromische Kunstindustrie, Darmstadt, 1964 (reprint of and edition of 1927; first published Vienna: 1901). ‘Schmarsow, August, Zur Frage nach dem Malerischen, Leipzig: 1896, Schmarsow, August, Barock und Rotoko, eine Auseinandersetzung tiber das ‘Malerisoke in der Architektur, Leipzig: 1897 Woliflin Heinrich, Renaissance und Barack, Eine Untersuchung iber das Wesen ‘und Entstehung des Barackstils én Italien, Munich, 1888. Notes am gene tho Graham Foundation for generous supporting the research land tos e53, 1 L Hydencch and W, Lat, Aiectne ny 300-160, Hamondeworth, Miles csp 229 2 bid 4, Maio Lab had firs sid he sus of Ale’ petro, Wolgnng Lot, intodtio alr Alesse Frit del ergot, Gen 175. 4 Upnela Pupp Ande eli The Compt Works Mia, 297; tention 19869. 236" [Pelaze Bertassann an be fin describ a. nar woek harmed no eo mc oy Palidl’s seen the ste he supervise personally any We crc of fe fade) bythe atl ‘Bremstence of he commision, wien nay well ave consterly raped al is ak 5 Ghdlo, Spee, Tin and Arce, pp. 1277 and pas 6 "Wie ene marche Architektur get 0p ina malesche Plus dle Melee: lunerechiedt i ner Cassie sober eine molershe Petoge:Heinich Wm, Revues wad Bore ps. 7 ‘Obesnstinurend id von den Geechietschsbern de Kare als wesenichistes Merl der Barockarelutester der nrc Chair angageben Die Bere verast h eigentamies ‘Wesen un get Wirkmgen neh ce ener ander Kant ners: ta wud malts Ti Ibid pp 6-20 Se aap. 38 hte Wlfin identifies the representation of moverent as he san ear of Baroque srct=tze 9: wor der Achtekt och deride it ngofeen Kanata ene wake Fem an sich esac, tne Drsalasfoum ehcchweg-oner ert du, won rie al ee Mase des ‘Sptchen Eindsuckes bowers sleet and dave eso se Winget 0 Sa ar Bless on tis ses cal Dtnn Bevenigrselg ag ls seh de ‘winder aun ebmndigen Be ingen. Von Fkdbrand, Ds Pre de Fr, B13 10.“ auf der andaen Seta ar de nsege Bevornugung der Male oder deena lnetigeBosttung der Kurata, der Doran oda Omani. ur fden We urn tsereten Vertindnis des geseicihs Proneeesversclesen Ue pebisine Varma, Fevanor Une sch eral i Se Konstgeachehts ada Veils der de sapseonete ‘Be einane grtden’ In Sema, arc Rok, P 11. stata cine Vernang der aesthetischen Lehr, wens, dan Gad von Belebung dberteibend, le Anslogon unsorer Rorpergefie aber uct und dieser objeksven Widarles vers Far ‘le Anger doer Anas geht ain grater wietiger Sst ar Arcutektr als Kanat. eto Tidy p2270 THE WILT SURFACE VOLUME 2 ‘eh ashe in dcr Binet wie eng mor das Welterwikan da platichen Hales, dn der Anse Herken teen Masts fll Bakunct nr vm heleistichen Tempel ‘une Scmareow, Zu Fag, pa. Shareow quotes cholic work of he 188 DY ‘Basch von Brant Aleandet Conse and Guide Hauck wo, towing the sme ted die 8 ‘raleacher Relic oi, p 2 Even Wain Wes tampted to dacs thee Baroque #0 Mb Remick pieuablyiening to felon thelr fooled dee partie Sete nn at pido Hales a i co (i, Rone ptr tothe 868 ion). Fr ldabrand's use of» paste conception ofthe alse Hidebrind, [ae Prt dor Form pve “Areitetr se ich dan al tenes Pomargen, teabhingig vo dar Pmangprscne” 1, ‘Dey Bagel des Males gest mu den wicigten er auglich auch vieldetigsten urd ‘ikaesten, mt denen de Runstgechicste arb Schnoaow quoter a contemporty set ‘atan Saaatow, Zar Frage pa Seinareo aero Cate Hauck e one thes 0 ‘tae aint he conesquss ofthe wee of rch eros he rs Se Gus Hue, "Die ‘Gran swachen Marl und Pati unde Gest de Resi oc de gon ‘rvasen Sommer “4 ‘Dic Ancltekur etn va eigenen Wesen Raungertntin, Scheu Zur ray 9:84 Foe ose Slarsow's conetion of arctan page see Mtl char Te “onngence of achtectral epace Agus Sckmaraou’s theory af Reine Asie 33, pp. soe £5 Wt, Rise nd Breck p36: Heit formation otis concept had beens is disrepair Pepto der Arc 8 ea ae ‘Bsench etn Kee Sebo (851933, ase 96 16. “Indeed Wolltic caited Butea hance the Prete to he good ection, 1908) ot Revtsoce und Bes, preface 7 ‘Scemagom Zi Frage p39 "oid, pp. 19-30 10. "We dg every cect in analogy with eu own bodies was WE’ suc frmblaton of hs ‘des olin Reson nd Bel p 38). Fora review ef the ena ducounse Geoman lnstheties ce HF Mallgenes ant. Hero, Tarot hE Famed Sper. Peblens Ger Aes 873-169, Sata, Monica 1994, p. 1-5. 2a, On Sehsarsow' partiaptin athe discourse of paycholgil phenomenoigy ae Mallerave, Enya Sor ond Spe pp 6-8 algae and Ika (as in 29). 2-s 132, On thie sive Sehmarow ques Wallin’ "Prologomena snes Peychologe der Atcitcktr, 186.5 m Jpn ute, Meiich Wel Kleine Serif (866"933) Base 948 23 Saatsow, Zur Fag, 47. 24 ‘Die Raub td stiildende Prosper Arcitektar 2 lan Zaten wd ned he Foaming im snasnen ct die Bhan dex Mal einen. 25, Sern, ark und Ras, 236. hid ppa-a 2, Tid Pa. 28 “Astekiur und Kenatgowebe offenbaren aie tendon Goetze de Kunstwoess otal ix sahezu mahematichor Reta Reg Kiting, PIS. 29, tid. p73 ‘0. Alot Rig Hitaruche Grit p28 sy i pas, 12 ‘Schonarow bat karl la Zeck aller Arie ce Raum hinges Est Ka ass Architektur und Rausing uisprunghah sche nach sid sp 30%Alina Payne 72 5 iniie 199 nots ho stats Dos Rei ess de erste Sinppe si dem Wye mxRasmianst.. Das ‘eritine svishen Figur usd Gre er vne ex man er er dekoratven Kunst sen sachen Muster und Grund st a sofort in Gravis’ Tp. agp. Al tend of 897 / otes ho fad etna Bnd os Fours (p22) Bevery ie cll a nding ed Dees heats went thzougha development ana he 399 veraon represen mote werked-out poston Riel focus an the ll and th concept af oem tnd che’ ved to Hides, though [tibesome te he wed to vol he peje avout of case vl sculpture a ese ‘orm foal at production that persed Drs Proto der or, On legs eatontp Filebvand see Marart iverson, fe Rh At nt Ty, Cambridge MA 998 P73: Si Rg Kunst, p48 235 Notonly as Rag! the cura of teats atthe Vi Mason Sr Kusat und indus, but he hd lo pub several aries on tpt, and» book Arndale The, Lassi 19: $8 Gotied Somsper, De tii den cise Kinston oer prise Aesth rasta Mai 18eox3 This view was lend adumbvate nhs sa eeay dust, Wesnschatt und Kuna See Gottied Semper, ste, Wiser nd Ki, eied by Han M. Wingo, Malnz end ‘Betn 1998 On the tlatorhp Debven he carpet pvadig ed the ith a abstraction in Dnting sc oseps Masha, "The expt paige! prlogomena toe tee of fats Fut grain 3 (Sptene 976), pp. B09 27.“ the cae of te Geom Style especialy necessary to pel enc and or te Insconcepions rurtuding is piel ecnin material agin ade alogedy ahora Tate of ts development” Rigs, Pole f typ lsh hee mare ect However, the Propaatine concern the spontaneous gettin ofthe Gaomete Sen varus Lctlons fron wenving techniques not nly went unchallenged by Nese eos but actualy began fo receive [rete auppat ik p19 Wolf ad made siaarangumen probably the soxtce fr Rie (then ha dtd his nap of Fogel g's Kol) "Die Natur des Batons die A Sina Benbetung, die Kanstruktion werden nl ce lise sein Ws eh aber aurea ‘dchue= namattch gegentberenigen neures Besrebunger st das dis le Tene ine Sst sondern wo tna vor Kuna prec estes Forges nner das Prive it Wf, Reason und Barc. 7. The gl Sesipercononttion has ben 8 ‘eeuren sue sn the iterate sn oth scholars For a syopai sae Mallen, Gale Sopp ‘Spande Altwough a Mallee note, Rig ambivalent eat Snes, Ya conc ‘nth Semper sigs moan and ots much with mater - whic Re gy Stabs tos lowers Indes Semper wa te ln abut own, norte view of Sromsking ‘alin snc bent tend das der St ale solhe me ‘Kanpotsinang ss Paktor hese What he ejects he pasion that se achiteltorieche Poumenwelt sacle ou snfichen kone Desingungenervorgegnrge es "ehiarmis deren wetter ntrckeln ds doch rma dor Sif der kaw diet nd eineenog irda slice Merete de letteen in de Srechemngsie aig massgebend ist Semper De Sp. 0 2B. ley Kantindnte, 3. ‘We wil ined ourselves orcad pros ~fo te fae of considerable opinion to the contrary ~ to evel that tvce-dirensional cular the eases, move pemve nadia, whe surface Alecoaton i de lier and moe etd. lel Peni 1p 40. elf als psn othe derive ats nn ines of Foi athe hd not mathe “onnesion to artectas tat Rig nade ‘Dan Puleeng des Vora ree va Sans neato beosecte: rich in dan gioco, scvetbowegicnon Foren der Suns ander to fn Wetneren dekoraliv Kunsten Hier beled ich des Fmgeloh ungahanst Und Unmttfbaruinve er wed sn denn auch de Spurea ener Brpeuring des tis Vernal mer avert endecken’ Wellin, Rens Beet 58. 4 Schmarcw mahed even farther and afer cieal position for Gidion’s pce rng of ‘hierar "Vor dor Architektur ausgohend lt mer scton en Stfergang duh de Kanter [mumichen Anshatngsor 2 denen der aeiichn hue bedbacitet worden Seharsow Zur Fg 9. 42 On Balen’ exposre to Ries writing se Stvord Andean Moder arctectre and Industy Peter eens and the ull pscy of tril determine’, Opestons a (Sumner £580) pp. 797 On te nuns of Regen Bens works the ABC ee Brodie. Swart, ‘he Wed Ban Try Cre fr Ft Hr, Net ae 157 Bp. - pg On Regs oral potion nang om hs attempt toring he decorative ne es72 Tie BUILT SURFACE VOLUME 2 together see Margaret hin, Forms af Rpesetaion Ali Rigs Tey af Ar, Unoverty Pat, PA, S968 PP. 1-32 45 Theale is reproduced in rasan in Mallgeve el, ela, pp e521 4 id p37. 45: salrech se das, wa en Bl abgabe, wes ohne weitere Zatch Vow fr der Mae seh" Win, Rese od Drs 35 46 Mallgavee, Bees, pp 219% 7. WH p08 48 hid p26 46 ld po, tid, p14 Such seaings of an Impreasonia concyption of hasty vision contin 16 be inves, tor empl nthe only Werkburd defton of cated signs andthe sadema0k Seen vicar the wo of Wernbund member Ried Harta, eyes Eaon aud Kn {Cologne 197) Fortis seusion se Schwat, The Menund (e2n.42 p. 3994 ‘Seo tote nigh fine wats Soon she tes of the cy wl linen ke white wal, Like Zen the hay cyte erp of heaven They fine wil be coo” Adolf Les, ‘Ornament an ene 9 2 Ra] incest asc Stig, for Ka 55 Looe, ‘Omament and rime, pap. ‘Ht Questo gu lirenceFeethtigu un aia tele un talon cle? Maly le "one, Is eubaes netmperent pent de tables composts comune des pe, ave es iments pis le sate of nsois Le Cab wf que emete en hone dans a Deintze un ts andion stan, fe Pi aren defo, estnlgueeenamentse a conf {qu'on peut az des pannentx nonrnszeti e'en est en 8c syste” Le Corbusier ed ‘Seana Apes esas, p33 15: les tables cubs procitet des sensations Aiouses A cue qu earch l rvigement die yean Aja demontré que pute sensation, brute, west que moyen de rnd at nous ‘mets hiarce de at enstion pure rt cramer Orgone eens ‘see cules et ormes pores av aupeseul Lave de sex bi tog, ml fonds et Irtsbies, le Cisne clan emis a rae place (ar omeman) et lee de fegarder Ss produto coma convent eat n ome or Foard n aps ce sles pelt ‘nea! dean To, pop 56 Le Conus, The Dewan Ato Toy, Cade, MA. 98 (ast etlon Pad 938). 7 57. Gldion Spe, Tin a Ast, p26 todo crnament se Kr, Dae Orit, pp. 23-98 18. Foran analysis ofthe eco eatlnuhip between oe tony end avec theory ‘2 hina Paya, Aud Witoorer and arse) principles nthe age of eerie ona! ‘fhe Soney of docs! Hearne 33 sp P3224 58. On Gian’ dato avait of intelectual les see Sokatis Georg, Sigal Gilon, Eno ener iS Brahe, Za 0, For Wllgeng Lot’ arguman guns ie se ofthe erm manner’ in architec see Walgans Lota Mnngisn acts in Tle Rene te rn Stain Ween A, Ae ol re temo Cogs te try fA (ances, New Jere 1964) Hep. 29-4 61 For the consqlenns of thi sepavation sy Alia Payne, Architectural History andthe tory of ‘Ax a Sonponsied Dialog’, our fie Bc f Arist! Hits, 58,5 (95300), Pp. a0The Built Surface Volume 2 Architecture and the pictorial arts from Romanticism to the twenty-first century Edited by Karen Koehler ASHGATE