back to Mediated Rhetoric and the Technologies of Communication
in Roman Tourist Sites: A Walking Panel welcome page.
Introduction
The general idea that architecture is a "language", and more specifically, the notion of the existence of a "classical language" of architecture, are widespread. With regards to the classicist architecture of sixteenth century Italy, this linguistical reference is more than a metaphor. The Renaissance theory of the five classical "orders" of architecture (tuscan, doric, etc.) evolved in the sixteenth century into a highly formalized linguistical system, perfectly isomorph to language. Hence, it can be studied linguistically, rhetorically, and even semiotically, without belying, nor betraying, the intentions of sixteenth century architects and theoreticians.
Architectural orders (i.e., compositions of bases, columns, capitals, and entablatures in building) have existed since Antiquity, and they were revived many times, albeit ephemerally, throughout the Middle-Ages, then again, somewhat more successfully, by fifteenth century humanists and architects. But in the sixteenth century several factors contributed to the metamorphosis of an hitherto informal and creative practice into a canonized norm. Several architectural theoreticians were influenced by contemporary linguistic theories aiming at a simpler method for the imitation of ancient "styles". More significantly, architectural treatises and books on architecture started to be printed and illustrated with woodcuts and engraved drawings. This fostered the diffusion of standardized architectural patterns and of identical architectural designs--a state of affairs which also promoted the very same notion that some architectural components could be conceived as reproducible, and destined to reproducibility right from the start.
By the mid sixteenth century, the "rule of the orders" could be bought at the booksellers' stands, formatted in cheap and portable manuals; it was a rule in the vulgate, destined to be studied and learned, without limitations of space--and almost without secrets of trade. These rules (in the plural, because there were more than one) defined the design of the orders (architectural morphology); their proportions; the names of each component (an architectural lexicon); the rules for putting together (com-ponere) more than one order (paradigmatically and syntagmatically); they even defined some standard meanings for some orders, and parts of them. Moreover, an explicit and sophisticated theory of the necessity of a dialectic between rules and "licence" (a deliberate infraction of the norm) calls to mind the modern notion of "langue" and "parole" (de Saussure) as the backbone of linguistic articulation.
By looking at some details of Michelangelo's architecture on Capitol Hill (or possibly of architecture attributed to him there) I shall try and illustrate some differences between what Michelangelo did, and what he should have done according to the architectural rules of his time; how this deliberate infraction of rules (in the language of the time, "licentiousness") was meaningful, and which meanings it was supposed to convey to Michelangelo's contemporaries, who shared the same codes and were acquainted with the same architectural conventions that Michelangelo knew, and violated.
A topic for reflection, which will not be answered, but that might be mentioned, is how Michelangelo's architecture may still be meaningful for us today, ignorant of and remote from the visual and semantic context in which it was created--and if so, why.
back to Mediated Rhetoric and the Technologies of Communication
in Roman Tourist Sites: A Walking Panel welcome page.