A Search for Correspondences in Tectonic Syntax of Hellenic Monumentalised Art and Architecture Before the Classical Period
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A search for correspondences in tectonic syntax of Hellenic monumentalised art and architecture before the Classical period Dr Karel A. Bakker, Department of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Interior Design, University of Pretoria) and Prof. D. Holm (Head Research and Post-graduate Study, Division for Environmental Design and Management, University of Pretoria). Abstract Whilst one can level certain criticisms at In offering new understanding of the Thomas Noble Howe's (1985) method tectonic syntax included in Hellenic art and ology and certain detail of his conclusions, architecture, the article demonstrates the trans his alternative hypothesis of the Doric ference of abstract ideas from one art form to Order having been an invention in stone another, the effects ofthe acceptance oftradition in achieved in a single generation of intense design, as well as the evolution of an esprit de architectural endeavour, has not yet been systeme over time. Rhys Carpenter's earlier tectonic overturned in a systematic manner. His understanding of the Hellenic Orders is expanded approach to dealing with a new analysis of through an analysis of the tectonic syntax in the abstract tectonic nature of the Doric examples oflate Mycenaean to Archaic art and the Archaic Ionic Order. A synthetic understanding of Order in its founding phase, one that does the interplay between style and tectonic syntax in not depart from, or rely in any way on, a Mycenaean and Hellenic pre-Classical monumental referral to the tectonics of timberwork, fills art and Archaic Hellenic architecture is constructed in the beginnings made by Carpenter and through integration ofthe results ofthe analysis with stands as a major contribution in the field, Thomas Noble Howe's analysis of the tectonic regardless of the detailed outcome of his syntax ofthe Doric Order. hypothesis. In coming to a conclusion regard ing what he terms to be, the "abstract Rhys Carpenter (1962: 258), in his tectonic rules" included in the Doric Order, work Greek Art. A study of the formal Howe analysed various monumentalised evolution ofstyle., came to the conclusion works in the Hellenic artistic sphere which that Hellenic architecture was a represent preceded the formation of the Doric Order ational art where existing visual elements (Note: The author would like to propose were stylistically [author's emphasis] that the term "tectonic syntax" is used applied within a fully organised, tectoni instead, to place the focus on the cally coherent scheme. Whilst this idea ofa perceived visual iconographic aspect coherent tectonic scheme was not a new rather than the hidden, technological conception, it departed from previous intricacies involved in the Hellenic works in that Carpenter (1962: 222) architectural Orders. In this article there is rejected the idea that the Hellenic also no further exploration of the architectural Orders were exact copies of iconological content of the works). Howe timber schemes, such being pure applied his conclusion to the Doric Order expression ofstructural logic. Unfortunately and found it to provide a clear and the scope of his work did not allow for a coherent framework which illuminates the pursuit of his theme through corroborati\e specific tectonic manner in which both archaeological evidence, which allowed for Geometric and Archaic artists and the idea of the Hellenic Orders being architects perceived and concretized their xylolith skeuomorphs to remain a view world. Howe (1985: 115) sees linkage which oppressed new architectural between the tectonic nature of Attic explanations of any tectonic rationale Geometric ware, the Archaic kouros imbued in the Orders. Up to the present, sculpture and the Doric Order on the one there is only one convincing thesis which hand, and specifics of Hellenic analytical tries to give a probable alternative to the thought on the other. He (1985: 117) timber skeuomorph school of thought. concludes that the re-occurrence of 22 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services similar tectonic rules in works from various the form of an interpretative synopsis (See phases in the Hellenic era, indicates the Tables 1A-C). In order to further look into existence of a specific Hellenic disposition the possibility and specific nature of the towards visioning a physical reality. This continuation of artistic predilections by vision or understanding of the physis means of the other spheres of art present seems to have been a unique composition, in the founding system of the Ionic Order, consisting of both organically and and those which were not covered by tectonically orientated analytical thinking, Howe's analysis, the author's analysis which expressed itself, amongst others, in involves monumental bronze kettle stands various art forms. from the Late Mycenaean period, together In order to explore Howe's con with examples from the Hellenic clusion this paper tries to address three Geometric Period which are known to questions arising from his hypothesis: The have been manufactured in the founding first is whether the abstract tectonic rules area of the Ionic Order (Le. the Cyclades) underlying the earliest works that he and which could indicate transference of a analysed, namely Attic Geometric earthen design orientation; Orientalising dec ware, were original conceptions orwhether orative schemes on earthenware they relied on achievements within a specifically found in the Cycladic area; the foregoing Hellenic cultural era, the so Archaic Ionic Order, as conceived in stone called "Dark Ages"? The second is whether in the Cyclades and evolved in eastern this tectonic perception, supposedly Ionia. prevalent in the Hellenic cultural sphere, The analysis is presented in a way was subscribed to in the Ionic cultural that represents Howe's interpretation, sphere before and during the formation of followed by an additional interpretation by the Ionic Order and was transferred to the the authors, with artefacts presented in Ionic Order? Thirdly, the question remains chronological progression. as to which outstanding aspects are required to ascertain who's perception of 1. Part 1 - Howe's analysis of the tectonic coherence of the Orders would tectonic syntax be the more probable, Carpenter and Howe's, or that of the timber-origin 1.1 Hellenic art - Attic MG II theorists? earthenware In addressing the first two questions The analysis of the tectonic syntax the author has identified certain regulating the building block patterns on monumentalised artefacts from the Late Eighth-century BC Geometric Geometric, Orientalising and Early Archaic (classed as MG II) earthenware (See periods that are deemed to be relevant to Table 1.A and Figure1 a) shows that the the transference of a tectonic vision over syntactical ordering of decoration time, to be analysed in the manner according to abstract structural principles, proposed by Howe (1985: 80-93; 116-7). rather than only subject to the material The earthenware, glyptic and toreutic composition of the pottery, is to be works are chosen in terms of their iconic understood as an intellectual ordering that nature, as well as due to the fact that they serves as visual fiction. This fiction show relevant composite decorative reflects - as stylistic overlay - the schemes or forms. In the manner of Howe, potter's or decorator's conceptualisation of the morphology ofthese works is defined in the artwork as abstract tectonic entity as terms of form elements (pattern elements well as physical entity. and connection elements), properties of form elements (nature, proportion, 1.2 Hellenic art - the Archaic kouros admissibility), and the syntax of the form Howe's (1985: 79) analysis of the elements (relative position, connection and tectonic syntax underlying Early Archaic ordering). In order to present the total kouroi (See Table 1.B and Figure1 b), analysis of artefacts to the reader, Howe's before any monumental Hellenic analysis of Attic Geometric earthenware architecture in the form of stone Orders, decoration, Early Archaic kouroi and the shows that insight into the human brm Doric Order was adopted for this article in 23 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services TABLE 1 1.A Eighth-century Be Hellenic MG II earthenware (Howe 1.B Early Archaic kouroi 1985: 80-93) (Howe, 1985: 116-7) Morphology Morphology nature * Each visual element on the surface is either a two nature * Elements are brmed as dimensional, compact block type element (pattern element) or a individual components. one-dimensional element (connecting element). * The elements are simple and * Hellenic art is essentially mass-positive. In MG II decoration very abstract, and speak of the pattern elements that suggest mass dominate, rather than physical and mental energy. the open spaces (voids). The outer boundaries of the pattern * Elements are convex rather elements applied to the surface of a volumetric element further than purely geometric and suggests the brm of the volumetric element. express vivacity and character. * The outer boundaries of the pattern elements are convex rather than concave. Convexity is the formal signifier of a coherent element with a specific character. Convexity also expresses the internal ability of the pattern element to be able to resist a force (This aspect indicates an organic principle that occurs \AJithin a tectonic relationship) . proportion proportion * Each element is a distinctly * The proportions of the pattern elements, as well as the positive recognisable form with its 0'M1 nature and coherence of the forms create the illusion of mass if character. placed on the surface of an object. admissibility admissibility * The elements are compact. * Pure geometric patterns are used, but only those of convex character. Where parts ofthe human body is represented, those elements are convex rather than pure geometric forms, and this composition of convex elements indicate an analytical vision where every part of the body is seen as an individual element each with its own character, and that the concave connections between the elements indicate the separation between elements. * Individual pattern elements are not subdivided or superimposed.