ARCH 84312

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Site, History, Type, and Allegory: The Poetics and Rhetoric of the Classical Tradition in Rome you must explain why in writing, and they are subject to my approval by the end of the second week): 1. Porta Santo Spirito and/or the Zecca (Banco di S. Spirito) 2. Porta Pia 3. Acqua Paola 4. Ponte Sant’ Angelo 5. Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne 6. Palazzo and Piazza Montecitorio 7. Villa Lante (Janiculum) 8. Villa Medici 9. Orti Farnesiani 10. Accademia degli Arcadi 11. S. Ivo and the Sapienza 12. S. Maria dell’ Orazione e Morte 13. S. Maria Maggiore 14. S. Maria degli Angeli 15. Ospedale di Santo Spirito 16. Ospizio di S. Trinità dei Pellegrini The final project will be due in Week 10 (see schedule, following). There will be assigned readings each week, which will be on reserve either in the form of photocopies or books; these are meant to supplement the talks we will do on site. Some of those books which you should be referencing this semester include: Joseph Connors and John Wilton-Ely, Piranesi Architetto Amato P. Frutaz, Le Piante di Roma Krautheimer, Frankl, Corbett, Corpus Basilicarum Marcia Hall, ed., Rome Richard Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City The Rome of Alexander VII Rodolfo Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romæ Paul Letarouilly, Edifices de Rome Moderne William L. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I and II David Mayernik, Timeless Cities John Onians, Bearers of Meaning Loren Partridge, The Art of the Renaissance in Rome 1400—1600 Paolo Portoghesi, Roma del Rinascimento Roma Barocca John Stamper, The Architecture of Roman Temples Mark Wilson-Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture Rudolph Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism Art & Architecture in Italy, 1600-1750 Sources of Readings by Week (subject to change): General: David Mayernik, Timeless Cities (esp. pp. 53–58 for the first class) 1. Charles Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, pp. 254–264 before the first class; 264–282 for second class 2. Joseph Connors, “Alliance and Enmity in Roman Baroque Urbanism,” Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotecha Hertziana [parts 1 and 2] 3. idem [parts 3 and 4] 4. John Onians, “Serlio’s Venice,” Bearers of Meaning 5. David Coffin, The Villa in the Life of Renaissance Rome, Farnesina and Madama 6. John Onians, “Bramante,” Bearers of Meaning 7. Joseph Connors “Virtuoso Architecture in Cassiano’s Rome,” Cassiano Dal Pozzo’s Paper Museum 8. Rudolph Wittkower, “Bernini,” Art & Architecture in Italy 1600—1750
Site, History, Type, and Allegory: The Poetics and Rhetoric of the Classical Tradition in Rome ANALYSIS: WHAT IS IT analysis noun (pl. -ses): detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation • the process of separating something into its constituent elements. Often contrasted with synthesis . ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek analusis, from analuein ‘unloose,’ from ana- ‘up’ + luein ‘loosen.’ —OED There seems to be a general confusion at our School about what is expected in an analysis exercise. Like any “creative” act (and analysis is, perforce, “creative” or inventive), it cannot be precisely codified. At the same time, some of its essential approaches and techniques can be spelled out, which will follow. But, a priori, my overall expectation is that you will pursue analysis with a creative, investigative mind, under one guiding rule: you are trying to puzzle out what is going on that was intended, or at least comprehended, by those who made whatever it is you are analyzing (it is therefore “objective,” directed toward the object and not the subject—i.e. you and what you “feel” about it). To be rigorous and rational, analysis cannot be as subjective as a Rorschach test; it demands, therefore, an understanding of the context within which the forms were created, or the why of them. It can be argued that all of the places we will explore this semester attempt to be synthetic environments, i.e. they strove in one way or another to not be recognized as composed of discrete pieces. At the same time, each manifests a clear (albeit sometimes contradictory within the group) attitude toward the disposition and expression of the parts of which they are composed (from programmatic to architectonic elements). Therefore, to be credible here your analyses must both pull apart and show how these buildings synthesized their components. Some Tactics Comparison and contrast: look at similar types that take on different forms, or similar forms for different types Graphic juxtaposition: to what extent is the same story being told in plan, section and elevation Compositional structure: document sequence, rhythm, hierarchies, positive ambiguities (or multiple readings) Some Techniques (remember, analysis is graphically reductive by nature) figure/ground (Nolli), primary/secondary/tertiary, axial/symmetry lines, sequential overlay, exploded axons, axons generally, juxtaposing two different kinds of graphic info (e.g. plan and vignette), keyed/”scanned” 1 dwgs. (e.g. ABCBA), etc., etc. Some Approaches Process (Design in reverse): try to work out what was intended by the maker(s), or how they got to the final product (e.g. by assembly, synthesis, transformation, etc.); not all buildings or places are composed in an additive process (i.e. “buildings made of other buildings”), but they often do have discrete components (functional or otherwise); it is a fact in Rome that most of the best architects tried to synthesize, not distinguish, the diverse parts of which their compositions were made (think of the parts of the body to the whole) Relationships: document physical/spatial relationships like bay rhythms, bilateral or local symmetry, alignments/axes, etc.; remember, in the urban realm these relationships are as much between buildings as proper to any one building References: try to work out the sources for the ideas the buildings or spaces depend upon (typologies, precedents/models from near and far, etc.) 1 scansion noun: the action of scanning a line of verse to determine its rhythm. • the rhythm of a line of verse. ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Latin scansio(n-), from scandere ‘to climb’ ;
Page 1 and 2: Site, History, Type, and Allegory:
Page 3 and 4: Site, History, Type, and Allegory:
Page 5: Site, History, Type, and Allegory:
Page 9: Site, History, Type, and Allegory:

ARCH 84312

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?