1996_1
|
II. On the Symmetry of the World
"1. Now architecture consists of Order, which is in Greek called
`taxis', and of Arrangement, which the Greeks name `diathesis, and of
Proportion and Symmetry and Decor and Distribution which in Greek is called
`oeconomia'.
2. Order is the balanced adjustment of the details of work separately, and,
as to the whole, the arrangement of the proportion with a view to a symmetrical
result....
Arrangement, however, is the fit assemblage of details, and, arising from
this assemblage, the elegant effect of the work and its dimensions, along with
a certain quality of character. ...
3. Proportion implies a graceful semblance; the suitable display of details
in their context. This is attained when the details of the work are of a height
suitable to their breadth, of a breadth suitable to their length; in a word,
when everything has a symmetrical correspondence.
4. Symmetry also is the appropriate harmony arising out of the work itself;
the correspondence of each given detail among the separate details to the form
of the design as a whole. As in human body, from cubit, foot, palm, inch and
other small parts comes the symmetry quality of eurhythmy; so is it in the
complete building..."
(Vitruvius; de architectura libri decem; translated by Granger 1970, p. 25,
27)
The term `Practical Aesthetics' first appears in the `Aesthetics' of Baumgarten
(1750/58) as headline for the planned second part that he never actually wrote.
In architecture, the word `practical aesthetics' was applied by Gottfried
Semper (Der Stil in den technischen und tektonischen Künsten oder
praktische Ästhetik, 1878/79), Camillo Sitte, (Der Städtebau nach
seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen, 1889), Heinrich Maertens
(Praktische Ästhetik der Baukunst, 1885) and Karl Henrici (Beiträge
zur praktischen Ästhetik im Städtebau, 1904). Sitte, Maertens and
Henrici used the word to represent their intentions to integrate art into
everyday urban surroundings. They had an idealistic understanding of art, but
wanted to impose it on the everyday for its embellishment (see Fehl).
However, to implement idealistic aesthetics is not the meaning of `practical
aesthetics'. It is more in line with Semper's ideas. He tried to consider art
(in architecture) as a result of developments in practical everyday life.
1. Vitruvius
To discuss the concept of a `Practical Aesthetics', I shall deal with
the question of art in architecture, or, more precisely, with symmetry,
proportion, and aesthetic order.
Who else could be a better reference than Vitruvius. He stands for the
beginning of architectural theory. Every understanding of art in architecture,
be it harmony, symmetry or proportion, is based on him. Some change his
definition of a good proportion, and view it more as a subjective feeling than
a calculable ratio, but that art in architecture is essentially proportion is
in accordance with his ideas. (Of course this is not only Vitruvius' position,
it is a widespread concept in ancient Rome and Greece.)
Vitruvius considered proportion as a ratio of simple integers. Every integer
has its own intrinsic value, the number 6, for example, stands for perfection.
Vitruvius found these ratios not only in the Greek temples but also in the
human body (see book III, chapter 1).
However, Vitruvius' statements and explanations of proportion did not just
refer to architecture as we understand it today (the 'de architectura libri
decem' deal with civil engineering, architecture, urban planning, machines,
particularly with clocks and weapons, and with astronomy). In his 9th and 10th
books, Vitruvius wrote about the orbit of planets, clocks and machines and he
also tried here to uncover proportional regularities and apply proportions to
the design of machines and weapons (see books 9 and 10).
If we take his definitions seriously, then we have to realize that arithmetic
proportions were what we today would consider the physical laws of the cosmos.
For Vitruvius they presented the universal order of the world. They were not
just aesthetic principles, but mainly ontological principles of how the cosmos
works. Nowadays, we would call this a `scientific research'.
The application of proportion in architecture means to produce architecture in
accordance with the laws of the universe.
2. The development of a pure aesthetics in architecture
What could we anticipate, if the methods of `scientific research' were
to improve and this would lead to a differentiation and development of
knowledge of the physical world?
If architecture is supposed to continue to the accordance with the universe,
then the order of architecture has to be changed in relation to scientific
findings.
Naturally, as time went by, methods, processes and results developed far beyond
the ratio of simple integers. Vitruvius' knowledge of the proportions of
weapons was developed into an independent military science; astronomy changed
totally, his assumption that the earth was the centre of the cosmos was
abandoned and three new planets (Uranus, 1781; Neptun 1846; Pluto 1930) were
discovered and all his findings on civil engineering, statics, and construction
were corrected.
Proportions were no longer considered to be an outcome of research on the order
of the universe.
But Vitruvius' remarks on special arithmetic and geometric ratios were not
subjected to change and reconsideration. The rules of proportion were isolated
from their scientific context and transformed into an autonomous and abstract
entity. The new subject `Aesthetics' was established. The art of producing good
architecture in line with the physical laws of the universe became the art of
proportion
Superficially, it looks as though there have been no change, but the meaning
differs completely. It has become a kind of mimicry, a `hocus-pocus' without
understanding any meaning and without causing the intended results.
A temporary state of knowledge was turned into a timeless, meaningless, and
empty formula.
Of course, the definition of art in architecture cannot be limited entirely to
proportion. There are some more definitions, for example, the use of idealized
classical language, of typology and of responds to the genius loci. And
naturally the historical development of the definition of proportion has to be
analyzed.
But I want to concentrate on Vitruvius' understanding of proportion as order of
the world without concentrating on certain proportional formulas. This is what
is called `Practical Aesthetics', and I am going to summarize only one concept.
This is more or less the opposite aesthetic position to metaphysical, abstract
and idealistic aesthetics.
For my talk, I shall refer to what may be the earliest example of the
concretization of a theory of practical aesthetics, to Shaftesbury's `The
Moralists', first published in 1709.
3. Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury (The Moralists, 1709)
Lord Shaftesbury (1671 - 1713), a disciple of Locke, is considered to be the
father of aesthetics in the English speaking world. (In the German speaking
world this would be Baumgarten)
`The Moralists' is dealing with questions of morality and beauty. It is the
reflection on doing things right and has nothing to do with moral education.
Aesthetics as cosmology
Lord Shaftesbury starts his text with the statement, that beauty has to be
understood in the abstract and cannot be induced from singular facts. Beauty as
a whole cannot be found in small subsystems. One has to include the whole
humanity.
"Laws, Constitutions, Civil and Religious Rites, all that civilizes or
polishes rude Mankind, the Sciences and Arts, Philosophy, Morals, Virtue; the
flourishing State of human Affairs, and the Perfection of human Nature; these
are its delightful Prospects, and this the Charm of Beauty which attracts it."
(Shaftesbury 1987, p. 62/64)
Beauty is "founded on Contrarietys" and "establishes a Universal Concord"
(Shaftesbury 1987, p. 66)
"Thus in the several Orders of Terrestrial Forms, a Resignation is
requir'd, a Sacrifice and mutual yielding of Natures one to another. The
Vegetables by their Death sustain the Animals: and Animal-Bodys dissolv'd
enrich the Earth, and raise again the Vegetable World. .. Here are those Laws
which ought not, nor can submit to any thing below. ... The ambient Air, the
inward vapours, the impending Meteors, or whatever else is nutrimental or
preservative of this Earth, must operate in a natural course: and the other
Constitutions must submit to the good Habit and Constitution of the
all-sustaining Globe." (Shaftesbury 1987, p. 66/68)
The singular elements of the world are all interrelated: the tree is
interrelated with earth, air and water. On the other hand, the tree serves as
fodder for animals that adopt their bodies to the elements in which they
live.
Shaftsbury is then interested in the order and perfectness of this structured
`cosmos' of interrelated elements.
"Nothing surely is more strongly imprinted on our Minds, or more
closely interwoven with our Souls, than the Idea or Sense of Order and
Proportion. Hence all the Force of Numbers, and those powerful Arts founded on
their Managemnet and Use. What a difference there is between Harmony and
Discord! between compos'd and orderly Motion, and that which is ungovern'd and
accidental! between the regular and uniform Pile of some noble Architect, and a
Heap of Sand or Stones! and between an organiz'd Body, and a Mist or Cloud
driven by the Wind!
Now as this Difference is immediately perceiv'd by a plain Internal
Sensation, so there is withal in Reason this account of it; That whatever
Things have Order, the same have Unity of design, and concur in one, are Parts
of one Whole, or are, in themselves, intire Systems. Such is a Tree, with all
its Branches; an Animal, with all ist Members; an Edifice, with all its
exteriour and interiour Ornaments..." (Shaftesbury 1987, p. 164)
The cosmos is not a static building, but a developing order "And
thus there can be no Good which is regular or constant. Happiness is a thing
out of the way, and never to be found but in wandering." (Shaftesbury 1987,
p. 80/82)
World, nature, and God are one system. Matter and God are the same. The natural
system is the realization of God, and this is the way God can be recognized in
the natural world.
When matter and God are identicaly, then so are material body and soul.
Although it may well be true, that `Material' is
"never able to have produc'd an immaterial thinking one
(Shaftesbury 1987, p. 178) "...Matter ...can never, of it-self, afford
one single Thought, never occasion or give rise to any thing like Sense or
Knowledge" (Shaftesbury 1987, p. 180)
The same also applies to the immaterial
"That do with it as you please, modify it thousand ways, purify it,
exalt it, torture it ever so much, or rack it, as they say with thinking; you
will never be able to produce or force contrary Substance out of it.
The poor Dregs of sorry Matter can no more be made out of the simple
Substance of immaterial Thought, than the high Spirits of Thought or Reason can
be extracted from the gross Substance of heavy Matter. (Shaftesbury 1987,
p. 180)
It is not important for Shaftesbury to solve this dilemma in a metaphysical
sphere or explain it theoretically. He shows the coherence of body and soul in
reality and treat it as a miracle.
In one of his practical examples, he asks, why we do not have wings, so that we
could fly.
He answers the question with a detailed analysis of what the human body would
look like with wings like a bird. He concludes that the human body would then
be dominated by two large muscles and that a lot of other organs would have to
be transformed and the brain would become smaller. The result of having wings
and of flying would be that our bodies would have to turn into these of birds
and our brain would go along with this bodily transformation, so that we would
turn into birds completely .
The specific purpose of life, the specific position in the world, causes a
specific constitution of the body. That is why a being with wings is a bird and
a human being a human being.
It is
"the admirable Distribution of Nature, her adapting and adjusting not
only the Stuff or Matter to the Shape and Form, and even the Shape it-self and
Form to the Circumstance, Place, Element, or Region; but also the Affections,
Appetites, Sensations, mutually to each other, as well as to the Matter, Form,
Action..."
(Shaftesbury 1987, p. 194)
Order
The essence of things is not a substance. The esence of things is their
order.
To prove this, Shaftesbury imagines an identical copy of a tree made out of wax
and he asks what is the existential identity of the real tree.
The wax copy of the tree looks completely like the real tree, so identity
cannot be the same as form. But it is also not the substance;
"...our Tree is a real Tree; lives, flourishes, and is still One and
the same; even when Vegetation and Change of Substance, not one Particle in it
remains the same." (Shaftesbury 1987, p. 252)
Even the body of man is renewed every seven years (see p 254). Even if there is
"not one Particle of it left, we are Our-selves still as much as
before." (Shaftesbury 1987, p. 254)
The existential identity of things is their order of parts, is the mutual
sympathy of parts. The parts of things work together to a common purpose. This
cooperation makes identity.
However, this order cannot be detached from the physical world. It is not a
spiritual demon, but a sympathy of things. Nature is not a material chaos to
which a spirit from an ideal sphere adds order. Rather, nature is the spiritual
order of physical things.
Order is a name for beauty and vice versa
Beauty is not sensory. It is true that there is a cursory beauty on the
surface. But true beauty is beyond appearance. True beauty is only revealed
through research and study. True beauty comes into existence through human
activity.
Appropriation
Order and beauty are deeply hidden.
They don't simply fall into our hands; we have to work to acquire them. We have
to possess talenbt and invest effort and time as well as permanently improve
our knowledge.
"Tell me therefore, have you fitly cultivated that Reason of yours,
polish'd it, and exercis'd it on the Subject? Or is it like to determine full
as well when un-exercis'd, as when thorowly exercis'd, or ever so expert?
Consider, pray in Mathematicks; Whose is the better Reason of the two, and
fitter to be rely'd on? The Practiser's? or his who is unpractis'd?...May he
not, perhaps, be allow'd the best Judge of Living, who studies Life, and
endeavours to form it by some Rule? (Shaftesbury 1987, p. 382)
One way to appropriate order and beauty is enthusiasm. It is a means with which
to approach natural and divine infinity, even for the insufficiant human
intellect.
Order and beauty cannot be comprehended completely because of the infinity of
the elements and because of the specific human situation at any point in time.
Wide areas remain in the darkness.
"..imagine only some Person intirely a Stranger to Navigation, and
ignorant of the Nature of the Sea or Waters, how great his Astonishment wou'd
be, when finding himself on board some Vessel, anchoring at Sea, remote from
all Land-Prospect, whilst it was yet a Calm, he view'd the ponderous Machine
firm and motionless in the midst of the smooth Ocean, and consider'd its
Foundations beneath, together with its Cordage, Masts, and Sails above.
...being ignorant of the Intent or Design of all above, wou'd he pronounce the
Masts and Cordage to be useless and cumbersom, and for this reason condemn the
Frame, and despise the Architect? O my Friend! let us not thus betray our
Ignorance, but consider where we are, and in what a Universe...
(Shaftesbury 1987, p. 170)
To summarize here:
Even Vitruvius considered art as an inherent order of the everyday, and it was
defined in this way in other philosophical concepts.
Vitruvius derived the order in architecture from the order of the world, from
the then known mathematical and pythagorean order of the ancient world. He may
well have considered order as a metaphysical concept, but it existed also in
the exterior nature and in the human body. This order is very simple, it can be
reduced to an abstract mathematical formula.
In principle, there is no difference to Shaftesbury: Order is also existential
in his texts. But, for Shaftesbury, order is a joint product of humanity and
the world and it cannot be deduced from mathematics. The knowledge of its
existence is, in contrast to Vitruvius, consolidated and differentiated and
cannot be expressed in a simple ratios of integers. Insofar, order is not
recognizable from the surface.
If one agrees with this premise, one has to apply all the means of science in
an attempt to improve our knowledge of this order and to make it come true. The
only way to realize this order is to fundamentally accept the unity of spirit
and body, to acknowledge that people are physical beings who are integrated
into their surroundings, that they exist in a phenomenal world. A liberation
from the everyday world would not mean freedom, but the destruction of the
foundations of being.
The line of philosophers addressing practical aesthetics is of course longer.
Let me mention here Adam Müller, the German romantic philosopher, who
connected a very conservative philosophical theory of states with economy and
aesthetics; Jakob Burckhardt with his history of the Renaissance; and
Tschernischewsky with his theory on the unity of art and life, which he wrote
in the second half of the 19th century; not to forget all the russian
philosophers and literats as Tretjakov or Meyerhold or modern phenomenological
philosophers like Dufrenne.
It would not only be necessary to present all these perspectives, but also
subject them to a detailed criticism. I have not done this, because my only
intention has been to expose the purposes of their theories. I wanted to show
against the `functionalists' that the intellectuality of the everyday and to
defend its complex order and against the `artists' that the aesthetic order is
an integrated part of the interaction between the everyday and the human
body.
To consider art as a ratio of simple integers - as `artists' do - is a
re-ification of an obsolete knowledge into a formula. It disregards the
intentions of Vitruvius and also neglects all the aesthetic theories since the
18th century. The reference to Vitruvius is simultanously a destruction of
Vitruvius.
But what makes a building beautiful? What makes architecture art?
Let me give short answers to these question, now.
4. Beauty and Art in Architecture
A. What makes architecture beautiful?
What makes a building beautiful?
I said that beauty is the being, the experience or the recognition of the order
of the game or of the order of the playground.
With reference to painting, this addresses the question of the difference
between a collection of coloured dots and a picture; that is, between disorder
and order.
Usually the distance to the everyday is viewed as an important condition for
grasping the beauty. But to have distance is already - as I have stressed in
the first chapter - an essential behavior within the everyday.
Distance is in both cases a procedure for concentrating attention on one world
and excluding all other things.
Normally, I use the physical world as the playground for my game, but I
concentrate on the game so that it will succeed. I normally try to keep the
game going, despite the complexity of all the given worlds. I do not try to
take all the different orders into account, because this would only disrupt the
perfomance of the game. Normally I am interested in the order of the game and
notin the order of the playground.
But I can also be interested in the order of the playground. I can concentrate
on the playground, and immediately discover the heterogeneity of the different
worlds in it. I can concentrate on one of these worlds and can try to grasp its
order. The result is to become distanced from the game and all the other
worlds. At a certain point of involvement in the playground, the current game
will stop.
The more I concentrate on one world, the more I can discover its order and its
beauty. I remove this world from the others and identify with it.
Beauty is connected with attention to the order. Attention means to concentrate
on the game or the playground or on different worlds of the playground. But
attention always means to give something up, to leave something, to refrain
from something.
Beauty is always attention to order and refraining from disorder.
B. What makes architecture art?
I shall answer this question by referring to Peter Weiß and his
theoretical explanations in his `Ästhetik des Widerstandes' (Aesthetics of
resistance). He sees art as a result of a specific appropriation, in his text,
of paintings. I want to transfer his insight to architecture.
Buildings have an autonomous existence in the everyday. The recipient, or,
better, the recipients, appropriate the buildings in practice and within an
intellectual and social discourse. They try to experience the building, get
involved in the substance and order of the building, and attempt to play the
appropriate game.
But this simple form of appropriation become more complex, because of the
length of everyday experience and the possibility of reflectiing on it
everybody can read the building in their own way, despite its inherent
intentions, despite the purposes of the architect or the owner of that
building. The building itself can lead also to a reflection on the
recipient.
If building and recipient manage to set up a mutual discourse and
appropriation, I would call it art.
Art is nether a simple duplication of the everyday nor its destruction. The
game must succeed, the player must get involved.
Art comes into being when the player invents a new game, and this new game
invents a new player.
One final comment:
Art as a dialogue between architecture and the user currently exists
predominantly in the re-use and use of historical monuments. These are
buildings that contain the remains of alternative games and have to be
reconstructed for new games.
This is regrettable because it leads people to view the past and art as the
same thing.
Art could be also developed with new buildings: if architecture is complex,
many-sided, autonomous, and open, and new residents have the opportunity to
engage in a dialogue with architecture through the possession of sufficient
money, education, culture, leisure time and the motivation to engage in
intensive exploration and artistic subversion.
References
|