Architecture as Signs and Systems For a Mannerist TIme

Robert Venturi & Denise Scott Brown

THE BELKNAP PRESS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS· CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS· LONDON, ENGLAND· 2004

RV: Artwork & Arch e’J’ ,) re Library Washington u:’li /(H’si ty Campus Field 1·,):51 One Brookin1 eight Dr. st. Lgli,s, !.:Zero &:n:W-4S99

DSB:

RV, DSB:

Copyright e 2004 by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown All rights reserved Printed in Italy

E book Design by Peter Holm, Sterling Hill Productions

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Knowledge

Venturi, Robert. Architecture as and methods: for a mannerist time I Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. p. em. – (The William E. Massey, Sr. lectures within the historical past of American civilization) Contains bibliographical references and index. ISBN Zero-674-01571-1 (alk. paper) 1. Symbolism in structure. 2. Communication in architectural design. I. Scott Brown, Denise, 1931- II. Title. sick. Collection.

NA2500.V45 2004 nO’.I-dc22 200404{)313

____ __ __ __

ttext,” for present his

l them in lied “that le most of ‘espitemy to be an

me of our 19 research, mth these ecause if I 1geswon’t

,the com­ :tronger­ ::ople who . work and lity to the

Architecture as Signal relatively than Area New Mannerism relatively than Previous Expressionism

ROBERT VENTURI

_~.’n.•. ~~~,’~'”‘.”.’.”_~ ‘_”””‘«”’.”””,_”,_.”””,~”,-,-” “.,-=–_””~ , ….. “””‘_.~~”‘,.._””’_…_,, *’…,’,.,..,….. ,u~.,_~

…­

mghai, China. 2003 -and for Shanghai, the mul­ . in the present day, and tomorrow! This of LED media, juxtaposing nbolic, and graphic photographs at ing. Every is a loft ami. a tower ibility the place dramatic fanfare hy relatively than from formal

1f:,!””mX~i!’/!II1oil!lll!l’!l.I-A-Ii.X -== “,. ‘:’,tW /«;”three m$f’f’,U:; :Ii:: =,7 ::!;:lL.t.1D”‘?:’f-,n:::::i’:::-1′”

~====

-Four­ A New Mannerism, for Architecture as Signal

So right here is complexity and contradiction as mannerism, or mannerism as the complexity and contradiction of today-in both case, in the present day it is man­ nerism, not Modernism.

At the start of the 20 th century, an aesthetic revolution made sense by way of a Trendy architectUre that was a stylistic adaptation of a present vernacular/industrial approach of building-just as within the mid-fif­ teenth century an aesthetic revolution made sense by way of a Renaissance architectUre that was a stylistic revival of an historical vocabulary, that of Roman structure. On the similar time, within the Modernist fashion an indus­ trial vocabulary was paradoxically accommodated inside an summary aes­ thetic, simply as within the Renaissance fashion a pagan/Classical vocabulary was paradoxically accommodated inside an explicitly Christian tradition. And might it now be stated that an aesthetic evolution is sensible on the start­ ning of the twenty-first century, partaking a mannerist structure developed from the preceeding fashion, that of traditional Modernism-just as an aesthetic evolution made sense within the mid-sixteenth century partaking a mannerist architectUre developed from the preceeding fashion, that of Excessive Renaissance?

In Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture I referred to

a complicated structure, with its attendant contradictions, [as] not solely

a response to the banality or prettiness of present structure. It [can

also represent an] angle widespread in … mannerist intervals [and can

also be] a steady pressure amongst various architects [in history].

At the moment this angle is once more related to each the medium of architec­ ture and this system in structure. First, the medium of architec­

ture have to be re-examined if the elevated scope of our structure as effectively as the complexity of its objectives is to be expressed. Simplified varieties

or superficially complicated varieties won’t work. As an alternative, the range inherent within the ambiguity of visible notion should as soon as extra be

A New Mannerism, for Architecture as Signal I ]three

Jj

74 I Robert Venturi

acknowledged and exploited. Second, the rising complexities of

our useful packages have to be acknowledged. l

In that work, I described, by comparative Assessment, historic examples of mannerist structure, express and implicit, that ac1mowl­ edge complexity and contradiction of their composition, however I didn’t prescribe a resultant structure for the time. This lack of prescription was famous by Alan Chimacoff and Alan Plattus as constructive of their essay in The Architectural File of September 1983.2 However right here and now, by a reconsideration of complexity and contradiction as it at the moment evolves, I want to prescribe a particular course, if not a style-that of Architecture as Signal-and describe a particular method, that ofmannerism, explicitly acceptable for our time. I shall rely once more right here on analyses of historic examples of mannerist structure and urbanism-plus one instance of our personal work-to confirm and make clear the evolutionary thought of mannerism and the complexity and contradiction it inherently embraces.

WHAT IS MANNERISM?

Mannerism-not found or ac1mowledged as a fashion till the mid­ nineteenth century-is, in accordance with Nikolaus Pevsner, “certainly filled with mannerisms.”) And it’s by definition exhausting to outline: Arnold Hauser has written, “It may be rightly complained that there isn’t any such factor as a clear and exhaustive definition of mannerism.”Four Shouldn’t be that an acceptable acknowledgment for our personal era-exemplified by multiculUIralism and by applied sciences evolving by leaps and bounds? However right here is my try at a definition of mannerism in structure acceptable for now:

Mannerism as Conference Tweaked-or as Modified Conference

Acknowledging Ambiguity. Mannerism for structure of our time

that acknowledges typical order relatively than authentic expres­

sion however breaks the traditional order to accommodate complexity

and contradiction and thereby engages atnbiguity-engages atnbi­

guity unatnbiguously. Mannerism as complexity and contradiction

utilized to convention-as acknowledging a typical order that

is then modified or damaged to accommodate legitimate exceptions and

acknowledge unru

a lot and conm

acknowledging a

order so as to be (

These traits acceptable for toda) conference as ordinar

So conference, syst the primary place earlier than racy’s tendency to br<: dence about realizing them persistently. Lat nerist pattern in British

It’s definitely signif nerism happens immedi tion as a fashion was mos right here is a definition of occasions given up on an< definition that does n. our time a bore. Right here that acknowledges and of in the present day (appropriatel)

Lodging

Ambiguity

Boredom

Each-and

Breaks

Chaos

Complexity

Contradiction

Distinction

Conference damaged

Deviations

.~

~ rising complexities of

edged.l

nparative Assessment, historic t and implicit, that acknowl­ r composition, however I didn’t me. This lack of prescription Ittus as constructive of their essay

1983.2 However right here and now, d contradiction as it currendy :ction, if not a style-that of lC method, that of mannerism, ~ely once more right here on analyses of me and urbanism-plus one larify the evolutionary thought of liction it inherendy embraces.

ISM?

Iged as a fashion till the mid­ )laus Pevsner, “certainly filled with to outline: Arnold Hauser has

‘it there isn’t any such factor as a m.»Four Shouldn’t be that an acceptable Hfied by multicn1turalism and :lds? However right here is my try at acceptable for now:

Ir as Modified Conference

for structure of our time

-ather than authentic expres­

o accommodate complexity

ambiguity-engages ambi­

mplexity and contradiction

Ig a typical order that

Iodate legitimate exceptions and

acknowledge unambiguous ambiguities for an evolving period ‘of com­

plexity and contradiction-rather than acknowledging no order or

acknowledging a totality of exceptions or acknowledging a new

order so as to be authentic.

These traits are what can distinguish a mannerist method acceptable for in the present day from a N eomodernist . method, which abhors conference as atypical and adores originality as something to be completely different.

So conference, system, order, genericness, manners have to be there within the first place earlier than they are often broken-think of the British aristoc­ racy’s tendency to interrupt the foundations of etiquette to be able to indicate confi­ dence about realizing them so effectively and due to this fact ease in not following them consistendy. Later I shall describe what I contemplate a parallel man­ nerist pattern in British structure all through its historical past.

It’s definitely vital that probably the most vivid manifestation of man­ nerism happens instantly after the Excessive Renaissance, the place conven­ tion as a fashion was most express and due to this fact most vividly breakable. So right here is a definition of mannerism the place conference is inherent however at rimes given up on and made thereby exceptionally unconventional-a definition that doesn’t contain originality or revolution, which is for our rime a bore. Right here is a checklist of components of a mannerist structure that acknowledges and accommodates the complexity and contradiction of in the present day (appropriately, in no order besides alphabetical):

Lodging

Ambiguity

Boredom’

Each-and

Breaks

Chaos

Complexity

Contradiction

Distinction

Conference damaged

Deviations

A New Mannerism, for Architecture as Signal I 15 .. -….•-.-“~–…—..- ..—…-.—.- ….- ..•.•.-..-~……–~.

76 I Robert Venturi

Troublesome complete

Discontinuity

Dysfunction

Dissonance

Distortion

Range

Dualities

Dumbness

Eclectic

On a regular basis

Exceptions

Generic damaged

Imbalance

Inconsistency

Incorrect

Inflection

Irony

Jumps in scale Juxtapositions

Layering Which means

Monotony

Naivete

Obscurity

Unusual

Paradox

Pluralism

Pop

Pragmatism

Actuality

Scales (plural)

Sophistication

Syncopation

Rigidity

..,.:;-

Terribilitli

Vernacular

Wit

Wrestling

I refer right here to not tln ture, for instance, which matique inconsistency of which finally ends up as abstra regarding what mannel

Contorted

Extreme

Ideological

Mannered

Minimalist

Picturesque

Well mannered

Willful

There are two sorts acknowledged: Specific three..J ular fashion of a explicit Italy in its purest and pre, be pure-and spelled the spelled with a small m, re: in various historic eras both naive or sophisticat

Specific Mannerism is , Giulio Romano, acknowl€ However it additionally embraces the ar. Implicit mannerism I additionally teristic of a lot English : Lutyens–or was he explic structure, from Glouce:

“lI’-”

Terribilicl

Vernacular WIt

Wrestling

I refer right here to not the overall inconsistency of latest Decon architec­ ture, for instance, which finally ends up as whole consistency, and to not the dra­ matique inconsistency of present Neomodern structure, for instance, which finally ends up as summary sculpture. So right here is a additional checklist of notes regarding what mannerism will not be:

Contorted Extreme

Ideological Mannered Minimalist

Picturesque Well mannered Willful

There are two sorts of mannerism in structure that may be acknowledged: Specific and Implicit. Specific may discuss with the partic­ ular fashion of a explicit interval, that of the mid-sixteenth century in Italy in its purest and predominant form-to the extent mannerism may be pure-and spelled due to this fact with a capital M. Implicit mannerism, spelled with a small m, refers to what may be known as traces of mannerism in various historic eras and various locations and may be interpreted as both n:ilve or refined in its manifestation.

Specific Mannerism is exemplified within the sixteenth-century work of Giulio Romano, acknowledged as tbe Mannerist architect by historians. However it additionally embraces the architectural work ofMichelangelo and Palladio. Implicit mannerism I additionally discover to be an everlasting and endearing charac­ teristic of a lot English structure, from Late Gothic to Sir Edwin Lutyens–or was he express? For this reason I am keen on and be taught from English structure, from Gloucester Cathedral to Lutyens’ manor homes.

A New Mannerism. for Architecture as Signal I 77

123. Hardwick Corridor, Chesterfield, England.

125,126. Sir Christopher

Wren’s st. Paul’s Cathedral, London.

signage on the scale of biJ

naive or refined? Is

Longleat Home, Montae

• Inigo Jones’ St. Paul’s, C

temple, whose incorrect

• Saint (relatively than Sir) C whose final Baroque

incorrect/ambiguous pel

And Saint Stephen’s Wa:

bine conference and oril

122. Gloucester Cathedral, Gloucester, England.

124. Inigo Jones’ St. Paul’s Church, Covent Backyard, London.

78 I Robert Venturi

IMPLICIT MANNERISM: EXAMPLES

What I’m describing as a mannerism to evolve by way of complexity and con­ tradiction for our time is extra on the express aspect than the implicit

side-it is extra capital M-oriented than small m. However I shall first overview some historic examples of implicit mannerist precedent in England that

I’ve subjectively chosen-many of which had been illustrated as examples of complexity and contradiction in Complexity and Contradiction:

• Gloucester Cathedral, whose buttresses expressed throughout the partitions

of the nave are primarily structural and horrendously incorrect,

throughout the hyper-rational architectural order that’s Gothic.

• The structure of most Elizabethan and Jacobean manor homes,

whose tense compositions embrace bearing partitions that consist largely

of window openings, as effectively as compositional dualities, iconographic

: EXAMPLES

;:volve by way of complexity and con­

express aspect than the implicit ;mall m. However I shall first overview

erist precedent in England that ::h had been illustrated as examples

exity and Contradiction:

expressed throughout the partitions

. horrendously incorrect,

,rder that’s Gothic.

I Jacobean manor homes, 19 partitions that consist mosdy

onal dualities, iconographic

125,126, Sir Christopher 127. Sir Christopher Wren’sSt. Stephen’s Walbrook,

Wren’s St. Paul’s London. Cathedral, London.

signage on the scale of billboards, and stylistic ambiguities. Are they

naive or refined? Is that this Late Gothic or Early Renaissance, as at

Longleat Home, Montacute Home, Hardwick Corridor, Hatfield Home?

• Inigo Jones’ St. Paul’s, Covent Backyard, an cute church as a

temple, whose incorrect Classical proportions create elegant pressure.

• Saint (relatively than Sir) Christopher Wren: viva St. Paul’s Cathedral,

whose final Baroque dome and drum are supported by a type of

incorrect/ambiguous pendentives inside (naive and refined?)!

And Saint Stephen’s Walbrook, whose related configurations com­

bine conference and originality to create pressure!

A New Mannerism, for Archiceccure as Signal I 79

~.

J

I .

II

~, ~

128. Nicholas Hawksmoor’s Christ Church, Spltalfields, 129. Nicholas Hawksmoor’s St. George’s, Bloomsbury, London. London.

‘V”‘- ,- .._-…-,.,.: . _ .-r1 ‘. ,’., “,,’ ,

.fl…..,… . OJ

. ,:!~;.”, .!

oc~,.~~~_~ ~!J ‘ >t;.. -. ~” ; ..,

~ ~II~·”- ;- ·;~. ~.~ _0′-••• ~_’ ~1I111;;u;~..;.#~~&1l3i~ _. -~- l!tllil!rai~”I!l1′.

• The fu~ade of Nichola~

a fu~de or is it a tower

rical classical temple bu

• Sir John Vanbrugh’s B first day in Europe. 01

or a dilatory pediment

• Sir John Soane’s arche~

hanging relatively than su

Related analyses can bt their vocabularies however vaL masters like that of Will and Lutyens. And will express Mannerists?

Different examples-not E small m:

• The longitudinal eleva!

Francesco Borrornini’s :

of the Palazzo di Propa

pose dualities which are t of the corridor as they spati:

• Luigi Moretti’s Casa del

tion of Rome, by way of the dl

it one constructing or two ? J

inflection atop every of il

• The plans of Guarino C

Immaculate Conception

Vaccaro’s San Gregorio

every composes without delay {

• Alvar Aalto’s church in, ‘

involving a typical

effectively as contradictory lay

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

80 I Robert Venturi

lrge’s, Bloomsbury, London.

4useum, London.

• The fa<;ade of Nicholas Hawksmoor’s Christ Church, Spitalfields: is it

a fa<;ade or is it a tower? Or his St. George’s, Bloornsbury-a symmet­

rical classical temple however with its big tower midway down one aspect.

• Sir John Vanbrugh’s Blenheim Palace, a constructing I visited on my

first day in Europe. On its entrance fac;ade: is that a damaged pediment

or a dilatory pediment?

• Sir John Soane’s arches inside his home and museum, that are

hanging relatively than supported.

Related analyses may be made in regards to the work-not authentic of their vocabularies however legitimate for his or her rnaimerist quality-of different British masters like that of William Butterfield, Charles Rennie Waterproof coat, and Lutyens. And will or not it’s argued that a few of these Brits had been express Mannerists?

Different examples-not British-that evoke implicit mannerism with a small m:

• The longimdinal elevations of the inside of

Francesco Borrornini’s Baroque chapel of I Re Magi

of the Palazzo di Propaganda Fide, whose piers com­

pose dualities which are then mollified by the corners

of the corridor as they spatially evolve.

• Luigi Moretti’s Casa del Girasole within the Parioli sec­

tion of Rome, by way of the duality of its entrance elevation: is

it one constructing or two? Most likely one, due to the

inflection atop every of its two segments.

• The plans of Guarino Guarini’s Church of the

Immaculate Conception in Turin and Giuseppe

Vaccaro’s San Gregorio Barbarigo in Rome, the place

every composes without delay dualities and wholes.

• Alvar Aalto’s church in, Vuoksenniska, close to Irnatra,

involving a typical however asymmetrical nave as

effectively as contradictory layers inside. 132, 133. Francesco Borromini’s I Re Magi chapel, Rome.

A New Mannerism , for Archicecrure as Signal I 81

o 10 1.Zero 10 H .

“””

_ ~ =- ~…: l =rr··—=-7 —::- …~ . ” ~= – –

_. – _I 10

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

134. Luigi Moretti’s Casa del Girasc

136. Giuseppe Vaccaro’s San Gregorio Barbarigo, Rome.

82 1 Robert Vemuri

10 fl.

~

~j. , ( I, . , .. .

–J’…, ‘! ,r ‘ ” ~D>:’ ( 1

.~1 f ‘ ~- . f’Okay ” ::., ) “1’­

~/j sick i, I­ J …. /l .

;,. -……..

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

A New Mannerism. for Architecture as Si9n I 83

134. Luigi Moretti’s Casa del Girasole, Rome.

140. Cathedral, Cefalu, Sicily.

139. Church of the Jacobins, Toulouse, France.

141. McKim, Mead & White’s Low Home, Bristol, Rhode Island.

84 I Robert Venturi

• The Gothic church of tl

columns/piers marching

it an instance par exceUt

• The mosaic determine of C

Cefalu-it is eloquently

• The slopes of the pedin

of McKim, Mead & Wl

the lengthy elevations and

however the home as iconic:

• And the work of Frank

as within the Pennsylvania j

Financial institution for the Republic i

demolished-for being

• And Armando Brasini’s

Santissima in Rome, fu1

dynamic classical comp!

its identify is simply too lengthy.

• And eventually the final word

Tokyo itself, whose aest

demolitions and its evol

exemplary metropolis of todayl

and.

• The Gothic church of the Jacobins in Toulouse, whose row of

columns/piers marching mysteriously up the middle of the nave make

it an instance par excellence of duality-and of ambiguous magnificence.

• The mosaic determine of Christ within the apse of the cathedral in

Cefalu-it is eloquently too huge.

• The slopes of the pedirnented roof of the Low Home, an early work

of McKim, Mead & “White in Bristol, Rhode Island, which happen on

the lengthy elevations and due to this fact on the “fallacious” sides of the home,

however the home as iconic shelter is thereby eloquently enhanced.

• And the work of Frank Furness, teeming with ambiguous dualities,

as within the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fantastic Arts and the Nationwide

Financial institution for the Republic in Philadelphia. A lot of his different work was

demolished-for being mannerist?

• And Armando Brasini’s Church of the Cuore Irnmacolato di Maria

Santissirna in Rome, filled with “too muches” and “too littles” in its

dynamic classical composition inside and out-not to say that

its identify is simply too lengthy.

• And eventually the final word instance of mannerist urbanism-the metropolis of

Tokyo itself, whose aesthetic of chaos derives from its revolutionary

demolitions and its evolutionary multiculturalism, making it an

exemplary metropolis of in the present day!

~

~ ~.• I .

I!l!!!!II’;iII!”‘I~ c: ., _”

:~ .• • ,m. ‘.r1~. ~-i-~ /~i.. -, -~ .~_.J ~J . .

, . ‘..!I’- ‘.’

142. Frank Furness’s Pennsylvania Academy of FIne Arts, Philadelphia.

143. Frank Furness’s Nationwide Financial institution of the Republic, Philadelphia.

144. Armando Brasini’s Church of the Cuore Immacolato di Maria Santissima, Rome.

A New Mannerism, {or Architecrure as Signal I 85

EXPLICIT MANNERISM: EXAMPLES

Listed here are some historic examples of express Mannerist precedent that I contemplate related and that “flip me on”-many of which additionally had been

illustrated as examples of complexity and contradiction in Complexity and Contradiction.

To start with, the architectural work of Michelangelo, whom I like probably the most and be taught probably the most from, and whose architectural work within the six­

teenth century, together with Palladio’s, I contemplate explicitly Mannerist. I can discuss with the rear fa<;ade of St. Peter’s, with its grand scale confinned and but humanized by the peak of its false attic home windows, which

matches that of the capitals of the adjoining pilasters; to the Laurentian Library, whose inside pilasters are columns individually niched inside

145, 146. Michelangelo’s 5t. Peter’s, Rome.

86 I Robert Venturi

the wall and whose vestibu

to the fa<;ades of the facu by their large and mil humane monumentality; to every of whose aspect partitions as area by implication expan( ceived as greater than it’s small area; to the Porta Pi

EXAMPLES

licit Mannerist precedent that l”-many of which additionally had been :l contradiction in Complexity

fichelangelo, whom I like the . architectural work within the six­ msider explicitly Mannerist. I with its grand scale confirmed s false attic home windows, which

nt pilasters; to the Laurentian OIlS individually niched inside

147, 148. Michelangelo’s Laurentian Library, Florence.

the wall and whose vestibule is a room and a staircase on the similar time;

to the fa~ades of the going through buildings of the Capitoline Hill, which, by their large and minor orders, glorify vagaries of scale and create

humane monumentality; to the Sforza Chapel in Santa Maria Maggiore, every of whose aspect partitions as a area of interest, by way of its big radius in plan, makes the

area by implication broaden past itself, and the area is due to this fact per­ ceived as greater than it’s and due to this fact as a monumental as effectively as a small area; to the Porta Pia, with its various combos of scales and

A New Mannerism , for Architecture as Si9n I 87

;J’i’–­ .

– I-

‘”.: ~ Zero.

‘” C u _VI ::: Zero

c: Qj -5: c­ c: ;: ‘” Qj “‘ -£;) .c: .!::!

Zero ex:

::E a> ~

CO CO

i

al e &

ra N

5 Vi

‘” 00 <:: .three’ V)

~

‘” ‘” ::l

t: ~

1: u I­

« l­

-2.. E­

‘c… <::

::E'” <::

$ … Z «

153, 154. Michelangelo’s Porta Pia, Rome.

symbols and distorted com of my controversial e-book c

After which there’s Palla( architectural good manne Mannerism by way of his palaces a Mannerist interval. How entrance fa~ade of the gloriou: outlined not by the macho defines the everyday rhythm small-scale elements-a m

and a statue in reduction as a 1 all however one of many 5 OF smaller in dimension than the until to the three tales of the relatively than extra delicate reversing this conference i

155. Andrea Palladio’s Palazzo Valmaran

90 I Robert Venturi

symbols and distorted conventions of vocabulary, illustrated on the duvet of my controversial e-book of thirty-eight years in the past.

After which there’s Palladio, identified all through historical past extra for his architectural good manners by way of his writings and his villas than for his Mannerism by way of his palaces and church buildings. However to me he’s a Mannerist in a Mannerist interval. How else are you able to acknowledge the nook of the entrance fa<;ade of the wonderful Palazzo Valmarana in Vicenza, whose bay is outlined not by the macho pilaster of the enormous order that persistently defines the everyday rhythmic bay of the remainder of the fa<;ade however by a number of small-scale elements-a minor-order pilaster on the floor flooring degree and a statue in reduction as a type of caryatid on the piano nobile degree. Additionally, all however one of many 5 openings vertically composed on this bay are smaller in dimension than the three openings of the everyday bays that confonn to the three tales of the remainder of the fa<;ade. Corners are normally much less relatively than extra delicate in wall-bearing fa<;ades-and the impact of reversing this conference is haunting.

s. GIORGI O M …. GGI ORE . A. PALL AD IO. 1566 – 1610 IL REDENTORE. VENEZIA. 1576

155. Andrea Palladio’s Palazzo Valmarana, Vicenza. 156. Andrea Palladio’s San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice. 157. Andrea Palladio’s /I Redentore, Venice.

A New Mannerism, for Arch itecture as Signal I 9 J

92 I Robert Venturi

After which there are the entrance fa~ades of two of Palladia’s church buildings in Venice-San Giorgio Maggiore and n Redentore-teerning with com­ plexities and contradictions which are legitimate. In every case right here is a Christian church whose inside relies on a Roman basilica (a regulation court docket) and whose exterior relies on a Roman temple–or is it a juxtaposition of temples? And the mixture of basilica and temple(s) makes for fantastically bizarre juxtapositions and layerings on the entrance, the place all sides of the basilican fa~ade turns into a bisected fragment of a pedimented temple and the place the

buttresses of the inside vault turn into other forms of fragments of temple pediments. After which the temple’s entrance columns turn into pilasters of var­

ious scales on a wall, and the doorway turns into one other little temple fa~de juxtaposed upon the middle. After which the best way that a few of these components,

involving varieties, symbols, and scales, hit the bottom, combining bases, no bases, and steps, makes for different components of architectural marvel in a Mannerist period-the Italian sixteenth century!

158. Conventional Japanese inside. 159. Japanese Buddhist Temple.

MANNERIST ARCHIT

TOMORROW’S MULTI

AN ARCHITECTURE

A mannerist architecl Japan-whose histori malism, exemplified

shipped and promote additionally Buddhist campI.

ignored by Modernis there’s not solely a mi dictory aesthetic-no explicitly symbolic ae~

A mannerist archit from Tokyo-a metropolis a order. So we go from rebuilt within the final

grandeur and evoluti

t..E-A~~1 “‘j ! fzn.- M~’ Zero /”ok.< ~

“D'”

160. “Studying From Tokyo.”