Springer International Publishing AG 2016 M

A Architecture “Renaissance Architecture” Versus “Architecture in the Renaissance” Nele De Raedt Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, The idea of the Renaissance as a distinct historical Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium period was formulated during its own time. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, humanist authors such as Petrarch (1304–1374) and Flavio Abstract Biondo (1392–1463) defined the time in which During the Renaissance in Europe, between they lived as separate from the immediate past, the roughly 1300 and 1650, a number of intellec- Middle Ages (or Medium Aevum). In doing so, tual discourses and practices helped shape the these writers confirmed that a new epoch in discipline of architecture. This article is not human history had arrived, one that concerned about canonical buildings or the evolution of all matters of human life: from science to litera- distinctive stylistic characteristics but rather ture, from politics to art (Günther 2009; Clarke six key topics within an overall threefold struc- 2003). For the Italian humanists, this concept of a ture: heritage and rupture with the tradition, new era coincided with the idea of a rebirth of the innovative and original aspects, and impact culture of classical antiquity. In the sixteenth cen- and legacy. The six topics are geometry as the tury, Giorgio Vasari applied these ideas to the scientific foundation of architecture; human- visual arts and referred to this rebirth with the ism, antiquarianism, and the recovery of word “rinascita” (Vasari 1550). ancient architecture; architectural histories The term “Renaissance” itself, however, was and the creation of an all’antica architecture; introduced only in the nineteenth century, and the canonization of the architectural orders; the specifically with reference to art history production of architectural theory; and disegno (Günther 2009). The French art historian Jean- and the use of architectural drawings. Intellec- Baptiste Séroux d’Agincourt (1730–1814) used tual history, rather than an art history of styles, the term in his Histoire de l’art par les monumens, is the general approach. It begins with a history depuis sa décadence au IVe siècle jusqu’à son of the term “Renaissance” and its application to renouvellement au XVIe (written from 1789 architecture. onward, published between 1810 and 1823). In this work, Séroux d’Agincourt understood the “Renaissance” as the artistic style of a period, which could be historically demarcated. With a focus on architectural history, he dated the # Springer International Publishing AG 2016 M. Sgarbi (ed.), Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_660-1 2 Architecture beginning of the Renaissance to the middle of the also to the possibility of creating a sequential art fifteenth century. In the previous two centuries, he history founded on a model of historically demar- wrote, Italian authors such as Dante, Petrarch, and cated period styles. This approach to art history Boccaccio, along with Greek scholars, had pre- was already formulated in the sixteenth century, as pared the “triumphant epoch of renewal.” With were the doubts surrounding it (Sankovitch their work, the human spirit was finally awaking 2001). In the first edition of the Vite de’ più from “its long sleep.” It was only in the fifteenth eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori italiani, century, however, that the rediscovery of Vitru- da Cimbadue insino a’ tempi nostri (published in vius and the study of ancient ruins revealed the 1550), Giorgio Vasari described the art and archi- true origins of architecture. Only at this time did tecture of his own time as a progressive evolution, the “Renaissance” really begin (Séroux following a natural pattern of birth, growth, matu- d’Agincourt 1823, III, 86). The period of the rity, and decline. According to this model, he Renaissance style in architecture, as understood divided recent and contemporary art into three by him, continued into his own time. “manners”: the prima maniera, the seconda During the nineteenth century, however, art maniera, and the maniera moderna (Vasari historians revised Séroux’s classification of 1550). In the 1568 edition of the Vite, however, Renaissance architecture and distinguished Vasari revised this strongly teleological system Renaissance architecture from Baroque architec- (Vasari 1568). Different styles and artists could ture. While Renaissance architecture had previ- and did operate next to one another. ously been distinguished from Gothic After its introduction into art history, the term architecture through its use of distinct architec- “Renaissance” was taken up outside the disci- tural elements (e.g., classical forms, round arches pline. The “Renaissance” was also regarded as a vs. fine tracery, pointed arches), now it was also cultural movement, as well as a historical period differentiated from Baroque architecture through (e.g., Burckhardt 1860). This widespread appro- the formal conception and arrangement of the priation of the term in an interdisciplinary context same architectural elements (e.g., static necessitates its careful and well-defined use. In vs. dynamic) (Frommel and Brucculeri 2012; this entry, “Renaissance” is used specifically to Günther 2009; Wöllflin 1915). Within this con- designate the historical period between 1300 text, the term “Renaissance” refers more to the and 1650. formal characteristics of a building than to the historical time period in which the building was built. One can therefore speak of Gothic architec- Heritage and Rupture with the Tradition ture in France and Renaissance architecture in Italy as being from the same historical moment. Since antiquity, the standard instruments of the The terms Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque architect had been the straightedge rule and the should thus be understood as modern labels, used compass, and this remained largely so during the to classify and categorize buildings based on sty- period under consideration. Geometry was the listic features. There has never been a complete most important mathematical discipline for archi- scholarly consensus about the exact definitions of tecture, both in theoretical discourse and in design these three terms. Furthermore, the boundary and and building practices. Toward the end of the even distinction between, for example, Gothic and sixteenth century, the dominance of geometry Renaissance architecture has always been a matter would be challenged when calculation by number of debate. Recently, these very distinctions have entered architectural practice. Architects studied received renewed attention within the art histori- and wrote on geometry and included geometrical cal discipline (Kavaler 2012; Bork 2011; Chatenet rules and formulae in their treatises on architec- 2011). ture; they also made contributions to the field of The debate is related not only to the classifica- applied mathematics. By drawing attention to the tion of buildings based on stylistic features, but interconnection between architecture and Architecture 3 geometry, architects also tried to demonstrate the geometry, as fundamental to architecture rational basis of their discipline. (Pauwels 2012). During the thirteenth and fourteenth century, This close connection between architecture admiration for the culture of the ancients steadily and geometry continued during the Middle Ages grew in Europe – in Italy, France, and Spain in and was expanded on between 1300 and 1650. particular. In these places, physical traces of antiq- Antonio Averlino (c.1400–c.1469), better known uity, whether textual or architectural, had never as Filarete, defined architecture, in his Libro completely disappeared. Yet from the fourteenth architettonico (c. 1461–1464), as comprising and fifteenth century onward, architects, artists, measurement and proportion. Albrecht Dürer and humanists changed their approach to these (1471–1529) applied the principles of geometry physical remains. Based on the careful study of to architecture, engineering, and typography in ancient buildings and written texts, architects the third book of Underweysung der Messung started to develop a new architectural language, mit dem Zirckel und Richtscheyt, published in creating forms that would be used until the twen- 1525. In his Premier tome de l’architecture, tieth century. Tradition thus became the catalyst published in 1567, Philibert de L’Orme for creation and innovation. The study of antiquity (1514–1570) stressed the importance of geomet- also encouraged the historical awareness of archi- rical knowledge for stereometry – that is, the tecture as a discipline. Beginning in the fifteenth science of measuring the volume of solid objects century, an unprecedented literature on architec- (Figs. 1 and 2). ture developed, taking the form of written histo- Collaborations between mathematicians and ries, commentaries, and treatises. architects also led to advancements in both fields Having found in Vitruvius a model, Renais- (Günther 2009). Filippo Brunelleschi sance authors began to write on architecture in (1337–1446) was acquainted with the mathemati- all its aspects. Defining the creation of buildings cian Giovanni dell’Abbaco (1354/1371–c. 1440), as a mental practice, these treatises contributed to who most probably advised him in developing the the concept of architecture as a theoretical and revolutionary construction technique for the intellectual endeavor. The architectural project, cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence. Fur- illustrated and communicated in

Load more