| Building Ornamentation and Decoration "Polychromatics In Liverpool: Then and Now" September 2007 [2] < -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> |
||||||||||||
|
Building detailing and ornamentation, including polychromy, was a growing phenomena during this (the Victorian) period. As Unrau (1978) identifies the clear leader in this field during the nineteenth century was Ruskin. We have already briefly considered ornamentation when looking at the issue of truth in materials. Though this was the prevalent ideology among the Ecclesiologists not all the followers of the Gothic style agreed with this. Though many, including Pugin (cited in Ford 1997), argued that many ornaments and mouldings within Gothic design serve a practical purpose, Ford (1997) assesses the situation differently. He identifies that the functionality of ornamentation is functional only in isolated cases, both within the Gothic style and within nineteenth century architecture generally. Despite being of the Gothic school Ruskin similarly dismissed the idea of ornamentation as a functional or symbolic relationship to the structure: “…the false theory that ornamentation should be merely decorated structure is so pretty and plausible, that it is likely to take away your attention from the far more important abstract conditions of design. Structure should never be contradicted, and in the best buildings it is pleasantly exhibited and enforced… yet so independent is the mechanical structure of the true design, that when I begin my Lectures of Architecture, the first building I shall give you as a standard will be one in which the structure is wholly concealed. It will be the Baptistery of Florence….” (1903 cited by Ford 1997) As stated above Ruskin believed that though ornamentation should not contradict the construction of a building, good design can be independent from the nuts and bolts of how it is constructed. A similar debate as to the role of decoration has been resurrected in modern architecture. Ford (1997) identifies the reasons for the use of decoration on buildings are: · to establish or deny scale · to explain or deny the structural behaviour of the building · to express or conceal the method of assembly · because of historical connection · because of stylistic connection He argues that in modern architectural design detailing is independent of style, and that though many details do have stylistic and historic connections these aren’t always used in harmony with the stylistic and historical connection of the building itself. Though the disappearance of ornamentation of buildings has long been associated with the arrival of modern building systems, Ford (1997) argues that these are merely simultaneous events. He identifies that many of the critics of ornamentation, including the prominent Adolf Loos, did so for cultural rather than for technical reasons. Many Modernists consider the role of ornamentation to have undergone evolutionary change rather than being simply eliminated. They argue that as long as any form of layered construction method is used then the some form of ornamentation, in the form of cladding, is required to hide the structural framework. This concept brings us full circle to consider the idea of polychromatics, which in the modern sense as defined by Collins (1965) is “…the variegations into the exterior design of façade…” (p111). [1 Polychromatics <<<] copyright of danceswithgoths [References] [CULTURE] [HOME] |
www.danceswithgoths.co.uk [HOME]
||||||||||||