Research Paper
"A Style for their own Time"
December 2014
Viollet-le-Duc was the most influential modern architectural theorist of the nineteenth century. His historical work, drawing from the French Gothic, lead to an influential theory of structural rationalism that clearly defined a style for his own time. The use of iron in modern buildings, was to be implemented with an honest efficiency that was true to the nature of the material. Historical reconstruction was adaptive to the style and superiority of French culture, where individual invention required the imagination of the architect’s interpretation of historical precedents. The culture of science forming the rational subject, inspired Viollet-le-Duc in his research methodology and practice in the spirit of French philosophical thought. He was a truly modern thinker, grounded in rationalism and inspired by natural ideologies that marked the formation of organic structures.
Like many
modernist developments, there was a discontinuity emerging between the Classist
schools, and a select group of architects and intellectuals that challenged the
blind following of antiquity in architecture and other disciplines.
Viollet-le-Duc was one of those individuals, who with his rational intelligence
could discern new principles of architectural design through the lens of
medieval precedents. Although this was not merely a theory of copying
historical examples, rather “ ‘architects should imagine what the consummately
rational medieval builders would have done if blessed with large sections of
iron’ ”.[1] He proposes a historical reformulation that
does not circumvent previous works, rather an adaptation and invention of a new
style emerges with contemporary iron technology. The inventive design process therefore becomes
seamless with the result, where the form and structure derived from iron, unify
according to basic principles of nature.[2]
His interest in the role of iron in modern buildings is central to the style of his era. The modern notion of what constitutes style, and what is appropriated in building technology, is a likely contributor to Viollet-le-Duc’s interpretation of iron in the design process. Iron is not only employed with an honest use of materials through its natural characteristics but expresses his own era with historical consistency.[3] Gothic forms were depicted as organisms according to their physical attributes, which translate iron into the role of human structural anatomy. His rational critique of medieval building followed from an adherence to the logics made visible through engineering.[4] He studied the myriad crystalline forms in nature, notably crystals in their structural complexity and saw architecture as emulating what he observed according to the finite laws of nature.[5] Structural rationalism emerged from an organic theory in which every structural component contributes to a larger order.
Historical reconstruction can leverage an overall style that is commensurate with the underlying principles of structure and organization. The student of history, must not merely study to appropriate knowledge for one’s own use, but according to Viollet-le-Duc, he should use it to understand their principles and generate new forms through a process of invention.[6] French Gothic architecture was thus seen as a form of pride, or more specifically “a supreme expression of French national genius,” where its construction must be formulated according to the climate and “national spirit” that has advanced scientific knowledge and inquiry.[7] He was an ardent critic of Boileau’s cast iron church and Vaudoyer’s cathedral because of their reliance on historicist reconstructions that were a mere derivative of “archaic wooden forms”.[8] Viollet-le-Duc’s recurrent insistence that the public building must exhibit French nationalist culture is imbricated with his notion of the inventive builder. Cathedrals were the first instance of this culture, and the genius of medieval architect’s followed a departure from Classical approaches that formulated an architecture that his country could call its own. Nationalist in spirit, Viollet-le-Duc praised a nation that fostered an extensive lineage of scientists and philosophers that further inspired engineers to produce innovative works that exemplified the rational genius of France.[9] A new imperative surfaced in Viollet-le-Duc’s theory that signaled conservation of medieval monuments that he trumpeted as valued symbols of a nationalist culture. The perfect monument was an ideal manifestation his citizenry, embodying all of the virtues espoused by an emerging modern state.[10] The simple and elegant system that he envisioned for his country was facilitated by the constant search for a language to describe his modern architecture. Universalist constructs that were common in 19th century philosophy attracted Viollet-le-Duc to look for underlying scientific laws that would bring a unity to architecture that was often in tension with his belief in finding basic principles in historical precedents.[11] He saw history as a measure of change in society and that architecture must evolve with it, but he did not see the imitation of history as a generator of progress.
Viollet-le-Duc investigated these principles in a series of manifestos most notably his Dictionaire, which catalogued French architecture from the 11th to 16th century in a remarkable set of drawings. His work continued and built upon his principles of historical investigations for modern architecture and embodied the principles that guided him to challenge historicism. Boileau inspired this collection when he insisted in 1855 that “ ‘iron and masonry make poor bedfellows’ “, a challenge that caused Viollet-le-Duc to rebuke this claim ten years later. In this monumental work of carefully examined buildings and theoretical projects, he was able to synthesize previous French historical architecture and produce some of the most visionary and radical theoretical works of the 19th century and quite possibly the entire modern era. The masonry vault was recast in a new light with an imaginary design for a market hall, which allowed for as much programmatic flow of space for merchants’ stalls and purchasers.[12] Organic theory developed out of this series of exploratory drawings. His exploded perspective drawing was the first to see architecture in its functional parts that correlated to an overarching whole. The unity of natural law implicates architecture as a series of elements predicated upon basic principles that generate new forms at the macroscopic scale. A unity of scale motivates the interconnected nature of creative design process. The laws of nature facilitate this reasoning, where “ ‘her deductions follow one upon the other according to the order of an invariable logic’ ”.[13]
Viollet-le-Duc followed a particular research method in which he examined historical works to produce theories for later practice. In his Annales Archeoliques the architecture of the French medieval period was thought to have reached a structural perfection in which every component part contributed to equilibrium. Structural rationalism was established thus through the careful study of historical monuments, where material properties were express rationally with minimum application.[14] Viollet-le-Duc thus admires the designer in his ability to rationally construct French civic monuments with the invariable logic developed by his nation.[15] He was clearly a rationalist, and in his Dictionaire he tried to prove the ingeniousness of French Gothic church builders in their ability to master the structural logic behind a reasoned and scientific design process.[16] His later work was modeled after this principle of structural rationalism and served as a critique of historicist claims by his contemporaries, most notably that of Beaux Arts Classicism which he vehemently challenged throughout his life.
Viollet-le-Duc influenced later advances in French architectural design. Anatole de Baudot was one of his pupils who continued a belief in revealing structure as a mode of architectural expression. His belief in the use of monolithic reinforced concrete construction for engineering design was offset by the more expressive aggregate concrete and brick technology implemented by the architect, demonstrated in his church of St-Jean-de-Montmartre in Paris. The complex vaulting followed Viollet-le-Duc’s theories on large open spaces providing a setting for public gathering.[17] The brilliant engineer Hennebique, who patented his own system in 1892, made ferroconcrete construction possible through the unique monolithic joint.[18] The interconnection between structural elements was made by his adaptation, allowing for a series of steel and concrete members to work in conjunction. August Perret continued the structural rationalist theory in his transposition of Classical language into Gothic structure. Reinforced concrete structures were detailed according to traditional wood framing in his structural approach that follows a broad movement towards an honest structural expression. The structural fame was considered by his teacher Choisy to be the “quintessential expression of built form,” and for Perret this architectural approach was modeled after the wood frame.[19] The organic theory of structure saw its transposition into the famous staircase of Tassel House, where Horta literally employed a freely imaginative organic quality that was true to the formation iron structures.[20] The iron takes on a dynamic quality that continues the organic style that Viollet-le-Duc was in search of.
In the mid eighteenth-century architects become self-conscious of their own modernity and their broader position in history. Viollet-le-Duc enquired in an 1859 lecture: “ ’is the nineteenth century condemned to come to an end without having found a style of its own’ ”?[21] He formulated an architectural critique within his own historical setting that marked a modernist search for style through a forensic approach to uncovering the lessons of French medieval builders who had perfected the expression of structure. Mere imitation of Classical architecture was not sufficient in determining a style individual for his own time. He resembled Ruskin’s position that Classical architecture was “a form of slavery of the human spirit,” and that Gothic architecture was more rational, materially flexible and economical.[22] Design flexibility and a certain liberation of the architects' inventive capacities mark a significant departure from classical to modern thought. Like many of his modernist predecessors, he voiced an institutional critique of the Academy that housed a central architectural administration that proliferated Classical dogmas.[23] The modern spirit was to liberate from prescribed doctrine and to face a newly rational design approach that was refined and honest in structural expression. The design procedure was seen as a problem to be solved and the program was “inseparably related to the finesse of the solution”.[24] The architect is conscious of how he arrives at a particular solution and it is the program that defines those parameters with a rational and thoughtful method.[25] The forensic approach of learning to analyze historical examples and then synthesizing for the conditions of his own time is a deeply modern approach exhibited by Viollet-le-Duc through his Dictionaire that set the foundation for his structural rationalist theory of style.
Viollet-le-Duc produced a series of theoretical works that are some of the most compelling images of the modern movement. They outlined a theory of style drawn from forensic historical research into French medieval Gothic architecture as a significant departure from academic Classicism. He influenced advances in French architectural design, leveraged by an strong nationalism founded in the scientific traditions of his country. Structural rationalism and organic theory inform design concepts of today. The program as a design problem forms a basis of modern architectural solutions. His idea that an architect can individually determine the outcome of any particular design problem is a major contribution of his work and research methodology. The culture of superiority in France’s national climate may have influenced Viollet-le-Duc from seeing architectures of historical relevance outside of French medieval Gothic, where his hypothesis that Cathedrals had perfected a unified structural system contradicts his notion of individual inventiveness. The Academy in France made a similar claim that Classicism achieved a perfection to be emulated. In this apparent reversal, Viollete-le-Duc may have replaced Classicism with another model in the form of French Gothic architecture. Although a significant departure from Beaux Arts Classicism is his claim that architects may synthesize historical examples to creatively invent a style appropriate for their own time.
Bibliography
Bergdoll, Barry. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, 1814-1879. London: Academy Editions, 1980. Print
Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2007.
Hoffmann, Donald. “Frank Lloyd Wright and Viollet-le-Duc,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Vol. 28, No. 3 (October 1969): 173-183.
Lewis, Michael J.. The Gothic Revival / Michael J. Lewis. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2002. Print.
Pevsner, Nikolaus, Sir. Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the appreciation of Gothic architecture. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969. Print.
Reiff, Daniel D.. “Viollet-le-Duc and American 19th Century Architecture,” Journal of Architectural Education Vol. 42, No. 1 (Autumn, 1988): 32-47.
[1] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 229.
[2] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 225.
[3] Daniel D. Reiff. “Viollet-le-Duc and American 19th Century Architecture,” Journal of Architectural Education Vol. 42, No. 1 (Autumn, 1988): 34.
[4] Michael J. Lewis. The Gothic Revival / Michael J. Lewis. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2002: 139-40.
[5] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 231.
[6] Donald Hoffmann. “Frank Lloyd Wright and Viollet-le-Duc,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Vol. 28, No. 3 (October 1969): 177.
[7] Donald Hoffmann. “Frank Lloyd Wright and Viollet-le-Duc,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Vol. 28, No. 3 (October 1969): 178.
[8] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 229.
[9] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 225.
[10] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 226.
[11] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 230.
[12] Michael J. Lewis. The Gothic Revival / Michael J. Lewis. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2002: 138.
[13] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 229.
[14] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 225.
[15] Nikolaus Pevsner, Sir. Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the appreciation of Gothic architecture. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969: 18.
[16] Nikolaus Pevsner, Sir. Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the appreciation of Gothic architecture. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969: 30.
[17] Kenneth Frampton. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2007: 38.
[18] Kenneth Frampton. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2007: 37.
[19] Kenneth Frampton. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2007: 106.
[20] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 278.
[21] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 225.
[22] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 225.
[23] Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750-1890 / Barry Bergdoll. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 226.
[24] Donald Hoffmann. “Frank Lloyd Wright and Viollet-le-Duc,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Vol. 28, No. 3 (October 1969): 176.
[25] Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, 1814-1879. London: Academy Editions, 1980: 8.