Journal of History and Culture Journal of History and Culture

j o u r n a l o f h i s t o r y a n d c u l t u r e
the architect’s role as a destroyer not a creator. In sum, praxis may result in some kind of paradox like Yamasaki’s
Pruitt-Igoe, which was apparently invested with benign neglect, noble action and naïve belief. Above all if Aquinas
is correct there is a key difference between God’s infinite power to create in a flash or to destroy in a flash, which
is nothing like the fallible qualities of any mortal architect.
In my view Raphael’s fresco embodies a dramatic interpretation: obscurum per obscurius, explaining the
obscure by means of the more obscure, which reflects the myriad ambiguities of Postmodernism, Pantheism, and the
Promethean myth. but this view must be qualified. In The School of Athens, Raphael created an allegorical trope, with
two statuettes framing the composition—Minerva the goddess of scientific arts and Apollo the god of liberal art—to
testify to the primacy of creative and intellectual power and test the possibilities of a discipline, such art, philosophy
and architecture. 1 Within the rhetorical context of this pictorial representation, the fresco is a set of metaphors, but
the ultimate connotation is the ability of human beings to acquire earthly power i.e. a priori knowledge. Raphael’s
way of summing up the importance of a priori knowledge is to place the assembly in the Lyceum. Aristotle and Plato
are depicted at the visual center, they are engaged in a discourse, in true Peripatetic manner. Not only this, but also
Leonardo, Archimedes, Bramante, Michelangelo, Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and others are suitably arranged from which
we must understand that they are in a state of mental and emotional stability and able to make rational judgments;
perhaps this is meant to further interrogate the meaning of body, spirit, action and emotion.
In addition, Aristotle is observed pointing down indicating his curiosity with the reality of life, and the phenomenon
of the natural world. Plato is pointing upwards—apparently his gesture can be attributed to the natural laws of
the world or our abstract sense of being. Finally, Michelangelo the gifted artist and architect is seen leaning on
an un-cut block of stone with his head in a reflective position. The activity of the Lyceum becomes a metaphoric
medium between the human assembly and the two deities representing a physic struggle, very much the way Raphael
portrayed Michelangelo. In his contemplative posture, he imitates the architect/designer contemplating a problem
from beginning to end; this idea reflects another allegory by calling attention to meaning, mimesis and praxis.
Art historians have explained Raphael’s fresco as having four domains: theology, philosophy, law and the
arts to which I might add human history, suffering and transcendence. There is no sub-text to the fresco, all we
have are visual icons hence the four domains produce vividly ambiguous dichotomies. In my view, the ultimate
dramatic emphasis of Raphael’s fresco is an allegorical liaison between two tropes: myth and reality; and secondly
the commonly held point of view that a human being is homo universale or ‘the measure of all things’ (!"#$%#&
'($)*#&"#+)!*,). The decisive appearance of both concepts depicts the illusion of human beings as false gods.
40