Positions 1996_1

Eduard Fuehr
Practical Aesthetics

(back to introduction)

(back to I. The Everyday)

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