Vitruvian Perspectives on Achitectural Quality

Vitruvian Perspectives on Achitectural Quality

Developing a Vitruvian discussion on green architecture – a starting point for an upcoming research project

Claus Bech-Danielsen, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University

Vitruvius’ triade -utilitas, firmitas, venustas

For more than 2000 years ago Marcus Vitruvius Pollio wrote the book De Architectura, the oldest extant book on architecture. In the book Vitruvius expressed the ancient thinking for the development of architectural quality, and he set out a series of precise rules for different building types. Vitruvius' book was rediscovered in the Renaissance as part of the contemporary renewed interest in ancient architecture, and with the modernist search for timeless and universal ideals of beauty, parts of Vitruvius' book had a revival again in the 20th century.

The book is still valid. This applies not least its description of architectural quality as stemming from a close interaction between firmitas (durability), utilitas (convenience) and venustas (beauty) (Morgan 1960, p.17). The three concepts are only mentioned in a single paragraph in the book (book 1, chapter 3, section 2). However, it is this part of the book's content that are constantly referred to. The three concepts put focus on the following partial aspects of architecture:

Firmitas is about the building's durability. As an example Vitruvius describes the importance of having the foundations carried down to solid ground, and the selection of good materials that are suited for the purpose are also pointed out as important. In the current use of Vitruvius' concept, this has been expanded to address all the issues that are of importance to the physical durability of the architecture. Are the building materials and the building constructions solid? Are they assembled wisely and safely? Can the materials withstand the climatic conditions on the locality? Are the building materials and the building constructions are resistant to the wear and tear they suffer in the dayly use etc.?

Utilitasaddresses the issues that are of importance to the functionality of architecture.[1] In the current understanding of the concept it address the buildings' ability to respond to the needs from the actual users and from the surrounding community. Are users' needs met in the building? Are the building organized and arranged to form an efficient framework for its intended purpose? Thus, it also becomes crucial whether the building responds to current ideals of 'the good life'.

Venustasis about architectural beauty, which in Vitruvius' classical universe ment the building's ability to mime (from the Greek: 'mimesis') natural cosmic order. Vitruvius believed that nature is an expression of cosmic order based on universal laws, and he believed, that architectural quality is achieved when the architectural design based on these laws - and when architecture thereby 'mimic' natural cosmic order. In a more contemporary understanding of the concept, it is about architecture's spatial and aesthetic conditions - proportions, the play between light and shadow, the contrasts between heaviness and lightness, textural qualities, structural patterns, rhythm, etc.

Figur. The Vitruvian triade explaining architectural quality as a wholeness consisting of an interplay between firmitas (durability), utilitas (convenience) and venustas (beauty).

The three concepts have been used again and again when architecture is described and analyzed. Each of the three corners in the Vitruvian triad sets up different demands and ideals, that must be met in the architecture - and it is vital in the creation of architectural quality, that the requirements of the three corners interact and creates a wholeness. In the assessments of architecture one partial aspect belonging to one corner of the triade (eg. durability) may well be addressed. Other assessments may address the qyality of the building constructions. One description is no more true than the other, they are just focusing on different aspects of the whole architectural quality.

In the following I will exemplify the aspects of each corner of the Vitruvian Triade by focusing on the modernist architecture concept

Case: The modernist architecture in the light of 'firmitas'

A description of modernist architecture, that is based on Vitruvius' concept 'Firmitas', will emphasize the modernists enthusiastic development of new materials, building constructions and forms of production. Focus will be on the use of materials such as concrete, glass and steel as groundbreaking for modernist architecture. For instance that the reinforced concrete allowed large spans without constructive supports, that new types of glass allowed the large glass panels and the new construction types set architecture free from traditional building materials and constructions.

In this light, it would appear that the new materials and construction types led to new form-guiding principles in architecture - such as Le Corbusier expressed in its 'Cinq points d'Architecture Nouvelle'. Here Le Corbusier pointed out, how new experiential and spatial qualities could occur as a result of the new building constructions. He showed, for example, how the reinforced concrete can be used in bar / plate assemblies, which gave new spatial possibilities compared to the traditional constructions. The design of space-creating elements - eg. thickness and location of walls - was no longer dictated by constructive relationship, and as clearly stated by Le Corbusier's sketches (see figure below) this gave rise to explore the conformational possibilities. For example the horizontal window bands were a showdown with the traditional division of facades, where the rhythmic division of the facades had been dictated by constructive demands. The architectural possibilities of the new materials were explored, and Le Corbusier demonstrated, that this led to new architectural forms and to a freedom in the design process - in line with the modernity he wanted to give expression to.

Figure: Le Corbusier 'Cinq points d'Architecture Nouvelle' can be seen as the development of new form guiding principles, which among other things is developed on the basis of the new materials and nye kinds of building constructions.

Regarding the actual production of construction, a similar description will focus on the major changes that occurred with the transition from traditional construction to industrialized construction. The description might also focus on the fact, that the modernist pioneers were inspired by engineers and their rational approach to construction - having knowledge of the new materials and mechanical production methods the engineers had taken the lead in shaping the industrialization of new products like cars, airplanes, bridges, ocean liners, factories etc. The architectural design should spring from logical reasoning and rational calculation.

These descriptions will sometimes point out that the architects' interest in engineers' rational products and contemporary new materials and structures (Firmitas) did not imply a depreciation of architecture's spatial and aesthetic qualities (venustas). In that case the description will stress, that the modernistic architects considered the logical perspectives and the rational calculations as expression of universal laws, which also mathematical and scientific formulas were seen as expression of. ”The Engineer, inspired by the law of Economy and governed by mathematical calculation, puts us in accord with universal law. He achieves harmony”, wrote Le Corbusier (1923, p.1). He portrayed thus the technical and rational calculations as a basic foundation for the development of aesthetic quality - which Vitruvius had described as expressions of the same universal laws.

When the modernistic architecture later in the century became the object of criticism, part of the critique concerned the durability of the buildings - 'Firmitas'. For example a problem was related to the flat roofs of modernism, unfortunately not suitable for the Nordic climate. This became obvious in in post-war industrialized construction, where major problems with leaking roofs occured. The durability-aspect of architectural quality - firmatas - was not good enough.

Case: The modernist architecture in the light of ‘utilitas’

A description of modernist architecture can also be performed with a special focus on the part of the architecture, as Vitruvius describes 'utilitas'. Such a description will typically start with Louis Henry Sullivan's famous doctrine: "Form follows function”[2] - architectural design should arise as a logical consequence of the building functional content.”No design is anything in itself”,[3]Gropius pointed out, and thus he argued that the architectural form should spring from functional analyzes of actual needs. The architecture should achieve its importance and its semantic content by covering the human needs, nichtweider.

In that light, the forming principle of modernism was primary connected to its functionality. Technical and constructive conditions was less essential, and contemporary development of new materials, building constructions and building technology are described as the means to achieve the primary goal - the creation of a modern welfare.There will be an emphasis on the architects' efforts to develop the physical framework for the modern ways of life that was developing in the early 20th century. Modernism architecture should reflect and materialize the contemporary vision of 'the good life'.

These descriptions will focus on the modernists' functional analyzes as essential for the development of modernist architecture. For example, that kitchen design were based on rational analysis of workflow and space requirements in the kitchen. And the fact, that the modernistic design objects were based on thorough measurements of human physiognomy are emphasised.This was the case in the Scandinavian version of modernism (functionalism), and led to a golden age of Danish furniture design - KaareKlint, Mogens Koch, BørgeMogensen and Arne Karlsen based their furniture on strict measurements of sitting height, working height, reach, eye level etc.

Other descriptions will focus on other scales in architecture, for example at the city level. Planners focused on urban functionality – efficiency, and this led to the functional zoning of cities. The same ideal are expressed on the scale of settlements. Here it led to mono-functionallity of residential areas located away from polluting industries. Also in each house, the same ideal are expressed, with each room optimized for one single function.[4]

Also these descriptions will sometimes point out that the modernists' interest in architecture's functionality (utilitas) does not mean a depreciation of architecture's spatial and aesthetic qualities (venustas).It is stressed, that the formalist principle that had prevailed in the previous period were simply replaced by functionalism principle - partly because functionalism as form-giving principle was seen as a way to secede from tradition and assume new aesthetic forms, which corresponded to a new spirit of time.

Figure: Christine Frederick was among the first to base kitchen design on functional analysis – she demonstrated how cooking could be implemented by time- and step-saving devices.Christine Fredericks work on kitchen design had great impact in the development in the Bauhaus Shhool.

When modernist architecture later in the century became the object of criticism, some of the criticism was directed against the part of modernist architecture and planning concept that emphasizes the functionality (utilitas). By way of example there has been a comprehensive critique of the mono-functional residential areas - the result of the zoned cities. They are certainly effective and quiet, but lacks the diversity that characterizes the historical centers.

Modernismen som case - venustras

Finally, a description of modernist architecture can also put a special focus on its aesthetic ideals, and thus the corner of Vitruvius' triad termed venustas. A focus in this description could for example be, that modernist architects expressed an artistic idea of establishing an 'architectural reset' - according to the modernist architects the traditional view on architecture had failed, and was out of step with developments in the industrialized society. Modernists therefore believed, that there was a need to start afresh.”Our diagnosis is that, to begin at the beginning. (…)Architecture of today is no longer conscious of its own beginnings”, Le Corbusier claimed (1923, p. 16).

This became important on a variety of areas, including the way modernists considered geometry. They rejected the meaning that the geometric and symmetrical forms had in the previous period, however they did not reject the geometric forms totally, they just related them to new meaning. The modernists considered the geometric forms as the original starting point of desing in the civilized worlds, as a zero point from which a new culture could develop new architectural forms.

Figure: Le Corbusiersscetch ofancient architecture. He saw the geometric forms as basic architectural elements.

Thus, there was a showdown with the the classicism of the previous period, not by rejecting the classic totally, but by developing a new understanding of ‘classical’.In ancient architecture modernist architects searched a number of universal and eternal laws on the aesthetic area. Through the exploration of classical masterpieces (among ancient Greeks and Egyptians, and with artists such as Michelangelo and Blondel) Le Corbusier found the basis for 'Le Modulor' - an aesthetic principle for the design.

It was also reflected in the modernist rediscovery of 'the golden ratio', which they considered to be an ancient aesthetic rule that could form the basis for the development of a new and everlasting architecture. The basic foundation for a new understanding of architectural quality was sought in the kind of universal laws which, according to Le Corbusier were fundamental to man as well as its surroundings in nature. When man could experience the universal laws of the surroundings, a sense of harmony occured, he said.

According to Le Corbusier the architectural design this way expressed harmony and order. Harmony was an important goal of the modernist design - as a reaction towards the experience of contemporary cities as confusing, noisy and full of chaotic impression.Also the bustle of industrial factories and the pace of the urban and social tranformations could be experienced stressful. One only has to see Charles Chaplin film 'Modern Times' to get an idea of ​​how the little man was confused in modernity's new reality. In the midst of this confusion modernist architects would create a universe of order and harmony - a place in which modern man could find meditative calm to achieve a new level of consciousness.

This was expressed through the architectural ideals of simplicity. Stucco and other types of decoration was banned, the architecture should arise in the dynamic interaction between spaces, so qualities of a fundamental nature could emerge. At the same time architectural expressions without historical roots were developed. Modernism turned its back to tradition, and created a tabula rasa on which a new culture could be developed.

This had spatial impact. Since the Renaissance, architecture had been experienced and arranged in relation to one particular point - the eyepoint of the King. From here the viewer had perspective view and control over the architectural space. The architecture had thus been designed in line with view of the central perspective, and the result was a hierarchical architecture where something was in the center, while the other objests was peripheral. Modernists broke with this view form (Bech-Danielsen 2001; Bek 2003). They did not focus on the individual, well-defined space, but on relationships between spaces. They rejected the classic and clearly delimited space - such as Frank Lloyd Wright started in the late 19th century and Le Corbusier consummated it subsequently.

Part of the subsequent criticism of modernistic architecture have focused on ideals concerning the aesthetical qualities (venustas). For example, it has been critisized that parts of the architectural ideals of modernism has been too abstract. Thus, it was only a cultural elite that was able to experience nature in the form of cirkles, squares and cones - and thus the architecture ended in disharmony with its own ideals of creating design to the average people.

The interplay between firmitas, utilitasand venustas.

In the above I have described the architectural concept of modernism in the light of Vitruvius' triad. However, it is important to recall that Vitruvius' three aspects of architectural quality should never be in isolated from each other in praxis. Architectural quality is a whole which only occurs when the three aspects of architectural quality are woven inextricably linked. Thus, the strength of the modernistic architectural concept is, that the ideals in each of three corners - firmitas, utilitas and venustas - are closely interlinked. This was obvious already in the design of Crystal Palace, which ushered the evolution of modern architecture when it was built in 1851. Crystal Palace was designed for a world exhibition - thus a new function, that required a brand new building type. The new function of the building set up new requirements for spatial dimensions and organization. Since the exibition was only open for a short period there were also requirements of temporality - it could be built quickly and taken down quickly after the exhibition. This had constructional implications, since a special industrial building technique (consisting of prefabricated sections of glass and steel) was developed for the purpose. Furthermore a completely new spatial experiences was developed in the glass building. a completely - clear spatial limitations disolved, and new relationships between outside and inside arised. Based on a new feature (utilitas), a new constructivesystems was developed (firmitas), which lead to entirely new spatial experiences (venustas).

The three corners in Vitruvius' triad is thus woven tightly together. Similarly, a number of basic architectural ideals of modernism - in a strange way - are linked to all three corners of the triad. As an example we can look at a single part of modernist architecture ideals - the claim to reject the use of ornamentation. This ideal was quite in line to the modernist effort to develop building techniques and construction methods, so they suited for industrial manufacturing and mass production. Industrialization had been developed into mass production and thus to the replacement of traditional craftsmanship. This had been designated as an aesthetic problem by 'The Arts and Crafts Society' in the second half of the 19th century, and John Ruskin and William Morris sought a solution in a reform of the crafts. The modernists took a greater extent to the consequence of industrialization, and developed architecture in light of the production methods, materials and construction systems, which belonged to industrialism. It was thus the modernists’ strength that they saw industrialism, which had previously been seen as the cause of the problem, in a new perspective in which it appeared as a solution to the problem. They explored the industrialized production methods, new materials and its construction forms for their inherent form guiding principles.