sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chinese architecture

http://www.paper.edu.cn

STYLISTIC OR TECTONIC? Historiography Revaluate the Interpretations of Chinese Wooden from James Fergusson to

Zhao Chen

Abstract: Chinese wooden architecture has been major of Chinese architectural culture, while how to interpret this special featured architecture in the World had been puzzled the Western architectural historians especially in the end of 19th Century to the beginning of 20th Century, such as Sir. James Fergusson and Sir. Banister Fletcher. With the opposite view politically, Chinese architectural historians, such as Liang Sicheng, started to make their interpretations for Chinese wooden architecture, which delivered the birth of the written history of . Nevertheless, we can see today the view of architecture that Chinese historians applied to interpret Chinese wooden architecture had been confined by , which produced inescapable contradiction.

Key words: Chinese wooden architecture, Stylistic, Classic, Liang Sicheng

Introduction: About Chinese Wooden Architecture and Interpretations From whatever the views, we always have seen that wooden structured architecture is the major system in Chinese architectural culture along the recorded history of Chinese civilization (at least three thousand years). There is already enough evidence about how great a quantity and rich usage all over the great country and along historic development. With cultural influence and exchange, wooden architecture was the major architectural system not only in , but also mainly in East and Southeast Asia, specifically Japan and Korea.

The main system of Chinese wooden architecture is the wooden framed structure system, or the frame bearing structure. It has been described many times in the , as “organic”; “skeleton and skin”; also many modern architects in the West were fascinated by it, since they found there has been strong logic related between Modern Architecture and the ancient architectural contributions of .

As a major architectural system in Chinese architectural culture, it has been developed so early, and according to some historiography treatise it even “reached its ‘adolescence’ in the (around the beginning of the Christian era).”1 The most amazing feature of this system is that it reached its "matured" stage in Tang and (around the 600 A. D. to 1000 A. D.), and did not change the features of this major system, disregarding some modifications in detailed construction. Some issue has been debating from very beginning time when historians attempted to interpret this system, such as, why Chinese architecture has been built coherently in wood? Or, the same question in the other way; why didn’t the Chinese develop stone structured architecture as in other cultures? However, architectural historians have to be confined by certain view of culture and methodology historically or regionally. Today, the main system of historiography about Chinese architecture has been established by the first generation of Chinese architectural historians, and represented by eminent Liang Sicheng (1901-1972). It was the clear political issue, as the result of inspiration of the researches from the foreigners, for Chinese historians to interpret Chinese architecture by themselves in the beginning of the last Century. While Liang’s interpretation was strongly influenced by his time the Western historians with the architectural view of Classicism, typically Sir. James Fergusson and Sir. Banister Fletcher. It is very interesting to review and revaluate Liang’s interpretations of Chinese wooden architecture with comparison to Fergusson and Fletcher.

Interpretations: James Fergusson and Banister Fletcher as Typical View of Western Architectural Historians in Colonial/Imperial Times The long history of searching for eastern culture from the west, could be dated early to Maco Polo in 13 century or even earlier in Roman of the First Century, Chinese architecture was combined with other features of , introduced more or less in a mystical way, so to speak “the vision of Cathey”. While we still can see the “Chinoiserie” from the Seventeenth to Eighteenth Century in Europe, was the first time for the Westerns to materially introduce and imitate Chinese architecture was introduced and in Europe.

1 Liang Sicheng: A pictorial History of Chinese Architecture: A Study of the Development of Its Structural System and the Evolution of Its Types, Edited by Wilma Fairbank, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 1984

1 http://www.paper.edu.cn

Nevertheless, it was based upon romanticism to imitate Chinese architecture with imaginary picturesque, and with mysteries.

By knowing more about Chinese architectural culture, the general publications about the started to add in their new additions also eastern traditions including the Chinese. James Fergusson had firstly dominated Chinese architecture as part of Eastern architecture in his “History of Architecture”. Yet at the same time he was uncertain about Chinese architecture since very little information has been available to him. His expression of surprise about the absence of monuments in Chinese architecture, especially in comparison to Egyptian, was typical of an European with a classical view of architecture at the end of the Nineteenth Century (Figure 1): “Notwithstanding all this, it certainly is curious to find the oldest civilized people now existing on the face of the globe almost wholly without monuments to record the past, or any desire to convey to posterity a worthy idea of their present greatness. It is no less remarkable to find the most populous of nations, a nation in which millions are always seeking employment, never thinking of any of those higher modes of expression which would serve as a means of multiplying occupation, and which elevate while feeding the masses; and still more startling to find wealth, such as the Chinese possess, never invested in self-glorification, by individuals erecting for themselves monuments which shall astonish their contemporaries, and hand down their names to posterity.” 2

If we understand his point of view as a result of limited knowledge or information, his observation is more or less correct. He expressed many times such observations in his chapter about Chinese architecture. It is very interesting to look at his interpretation today; actually it is not difficult to understand him, since we notice the ignorance of Chinese culture, and the restricted view of architecture available to him as a European in middle of 19 Century.

Predominantly, Sir. Banister Fletcher’s “A History of Architecture”, edited and revised more than twenty times till 1996, had a strong influence on architectural research and education. The changing versions of the book, show clearly how the West changed its view of architecture in the World from the end of last century till to now3. The descriptions and explanations of Chinese architecture put into the fourth version in 1901, were categorized as non-European architecture with the general title of “The Non-Historical Styles”. Combined with the famous “Tree of Architecture” (Figure 2), which was used as a fundamental description of historical evolution of architecture in the World, Chinese architecture is the same as Japanese, Arabic, etc. all put into the branches. Obviously the main evolution of Europe was expressed with the trunk. Sir. Banister Fletcher represented a view of architecture based upon classicism. With this interpretation of “The Non- Historical Styles” and “Tree of Architecture”, Fletcher became also a typical representative of colonialism in architectural historians. It is not difficult to see Fletcher’s classicism and colonialism with his written comment to “The Non-Historical Styles” as follows: “These non-historical styles can scarcely be as interesting from an architect’s point of view as those of Europe, which have progressed by the successive solution of constructive problems, resolutely met and overcome; for in the East decorative schemes seem generally to have outweighed all other considerations, and in this would appear to lie the main essential differences between Historical and Non-Historical architecture.”4

This was often criticized afterwards by many scholars from Western and Eastern. Ito Chuta, the most important architectural historian of Japan, made his complaining on it at the beginning of 20th Century. However it was not really reacted by the realm of . On the 17th Edition of “Fletcher’s History of Architecture” in 1961, responded editor Prof. R. A. Cordingley gave up Fletcher’s concepts on architectural culture of the World, used “Architecture in the East” to instead of “Non-Historical Architecture”, and “Ancient Architecture and the Western Succession” to instead of “Historical Architecture”. He explained that: “The further general heading (The Non-Historical Styles) for Part II was

2 James Fergusson: History of Architecture in All Countries, from the earliest times to the present day, London, 1865. Vol. II, Part III, Bk. VII, Ch. I, P. 736 3 Sir. Banister Fletcher’s “A History of Architecture, on the Comparative Method for the Student Craftsman, and Amateur”, firstly published in 1896, edited to third version in 1897, which didn’t concern anything about Chinese as well as Eastern architecture. From fourth version in 1901 to sixteenth version in 1954, two parts of “Historical Architecture” and “Non-Historical Architecture” were embodied; the seventeenth version in 1961 started to change with “Architecture in the East” to instead of “Non-Historical Architecture”, and “Ancient Architecture and the Western Succession” to instead of “Historical Architecture”; even big structural changing of the book happened on nineteenth version in 1987 as well as the newest twentieth version in 1996. 4 Sir. Banister Fletcher: “A History of Architecture, on the Comparative Method for the Student Craftsman, and Amateur”, 4th Edition, London, 1901, P. 888

2 http://www.paper.edu.cn inappropriate. The of the East are just as historical as those of the West.”5 Real stroke came from Joseph Needham, he criticized the most former Western interpretations for Chinese architecture, it is quite clear that Fletcher’s History of Architecture was impossible to be neglected: “Moreover, the Chinese sections of books which purport to describe the architecture of all peoples are in general very bad, and to this the well-known treatise of Fletcher is no exception.” 6 It has been continuously criticized by other architects from non-European Countries, especially recent years. One would see some representatives like, Gülsüm Baydar Nalbantoglu: “Writing Postcoloniality in Architecture: Dis-covering Sir Banister Fletcher’s History of Architecture”7, and Paul Walker: “The Invisible East: Fletcher and the Unseen Ho-o-den ” 8

To criticize those interpretations from Western architectural historians that time, we often concerned the Colonialism and Imperialism as their political bass, and European Centralism as their essential mentality. It might be necessary to take the view of architecture as the academic dimension into our consideration. Meaning, with the view of classicism, architectural history has been defined with styles of architectural form. In the West, historical architecture style, especially with stone structured , has been very much concerned by various façade of a building. It would be never worked, with this stylistic view to interpret Chinese wooden architecture, which should be almost similar as the vernacular wooden in the Europe. Therefore, the political pole of the Colonialism and Imperialism with the mentality of European Centralism was actually supported by classicism in architectural realm.

Interpretations: Liang Sicheng as Typical View of The First Generation of Chinese Architectural Historian It was not occurred any descent research for Chinese architecture by Chinese scholars until 1920’s, when some abroad educated young professionals started their career in China. However there were already some traditional scholars tried to make their work on Chinese architecture, but had not really academically valuable due to their lack of professional knowledge bass and scientific methods. Come with the establishing architectural profession in China, those young architects formed afterwards we called, the first generation of Chinese architects. Some of them encountered the research and interpretation of Chinese architecture professionally and academically; this was the establishing the Chinese Architectural Academia, and automatically those scholars became the first generation of Chinese architectural historians. It is also very clear that Liang Sicheng should be the most important preventatives of this group of historian, not only because he was firstly worked out descent research for Chinese architecture, but also his dominating in the realm of Chinese architecture theory for more than 50 year.

As the reasonable reaction from Chinese people in colonial/imperial times, the political explanation of Nationalism became the major trend of the society, especially among scholars. There was a clear determination in architectural realm, “Chinese architecture studied by Chinese”, by the group of “The Society for Research in Chinese Architecture (Ying Zao Xue She)”. Under the principle of “Restoring the National Treasure”, Liang Sicheng and his colleagues, aimed to establish the classic tradition of Chinese architecture was supreme, worthwhile for them to contribute their whole lives. This enthusiastic nationalism drove them to the development of a Chinese classicism capable of competition with the West. It was quite natural, with the impact of the Nationalism, many intellectuals choose their academic life with a strong will to revive Chinese culture in modern times. Both the most scholarly-based Chinese intellectuals were being involved in this trend, as well as young professionals such as Liang Sicheng. Liang had expressed strong criticism of the westerner’s interpretations of Chinese architecture at that time, for example the German photographer Ernst Boeschmann9. Liang Sicheng also expressed his unhappiness with Japanese scholars who had opened wide and deep research into Chinese architecture as resulting in a picture in which there existed more ancient architecture from the (618 - 907 A. D.) or even earlier in Japan than in China. Because of this, the Japanese had ridiculed the Chinese for not being able to find any old structure

5 R. A. Cordingley: “Preface”for “Sir. Banister Fletcher’s A History of Architecture” 17th Edition, London, 1961 6 Joseph Needham: “Science and Civilisation in China”, Cambridge , 1971, Vol.4, Part III, P.59 7 “Journal of Southeast Asian Architecture” September, 1996, School of Architecture, National University of Singapore. 8 “Place and Imagination: Cross-Cultural Thinking in Architecture”, ed. Samer Akkach, Stanislaus Fung & Peter Scriver (University of Adelaide, 1999), 145-151. 9 Ernst Boerschmann published his first book about Chinese architecture in 1911, Die Baukunst und religioese Kultur der Chinesen, Einzeldarstellungen auf Grund eigener Aufnahmen waehrend dreijaehriger Reisen in China, (three volumes) Berlin: Gruyter, 1911-1931; after wards with Baukunst und Landschaft in China, Eine Reise Durch Zwölf Provinzen, Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1923; then with Chinesisch Architektur, (two volumes) Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1925. He was accepted as a foreign member of “the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture” ( Yin Zao Xue She ) in 1932. (Cited from Lin Zhu: “Knock to Open the Gate of Lu Ban - A Summarized History of Yin Zao Xue She, China Architectural and Engineering Press, , 1995 )

3 http://www.paper.edu.cn from the Tang dynasty (which was the brilliant period in the history of Chinese civilization). It was therefor the ambition of the Society to find existing buildings of the Tang dynasty. This attempt succeeded in 1937, Liang Sicheng discovered the Fo Guang Monastery (Fo Guang Shi) in the holy Buddhist mountain, Wu Tai Shan, province. His success was no doubted a proof of the value of academic research at the same time it served his nationalist ideal10. It gave him the highest reputation national-wide, and encouraged many young Chinese architects as well as the society as a whole, in their pursuits as well as self-confidence in their architectural culture.

Unfortunately, the academic education Liang Sicheng and other Chinese scholars got at the University of Pennsylvania in 1920’s was strongly Beaux-Arts oriented. It was this American architectural school which transformed successfully the classical tradition of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, headed by the renowned Paul Cret 11 . So, the interpretations from Liang as the representative of the first generation of Chinese architectural historian remained certainly classical and stylistic.

With this view of classicism, classical Chinese wooden architecture was interpreted. As in a classical building in the West, the “façade” of a Chinese would be defined as three parts with “Platform or Stylobate”, “Middle part” as well as “Roof part” (similar to an analysis of ). Proportions of the facade were emphasized as an indication of the “styles”, especially to embody the different dynasties (Figure 3). The most famous of Liang Sicheng’s definitions concerning Chinese architecture is probably “The Chinese Order” (Figure 4). It is based upon the combination of three parts, of base, column, “Dou Gong” (Cantilever brackets). Apparently, “Dou Gong” was mostly emphasized, since its significance in comparison to the capital of the column in the West. Furthermore, “Cai”(Ts’ai in the Wade system) in the Song Dynasty or “Dou Kou” in the became the modular unit for the composition of Chinese . Of course the focus was on the “façade”. Gin-Djih Su had described this study with admiration: “The riddle and key to the Chinese constructional method was hence rediscovered. Like classical Greek architecture, the set ratio of dimensions of the parts of the building to the unit of module or Tsai in Chinese architecture, regulates the size of columns, beams and roof as well as the height of the building. The method of plotting a beautiful curve was also found by this group of architects. Measured drawings of the existing buildings were elaborately reproduced. The work of this society was most beneficial to the western-trained architects.”12

Stylistic thinking, applied to classical Chinese wooden architecture turned all the decorative parts of buildings into important national motifs. In Liang Sicheng’s early works, “Illustrated Reference for Architectural Design”13, published in several volumes according to the different parts of classical Chinese wooden architecture, we find well documented the classical motifs indicating various style or dynasties. He wished the books would help the contemporary architects in China to know how to create new Chinese architecture. The books were called “Reference for Design”, and certainly emphasized the importance of motifs in the “revival of Chinese classic”, which was also described as “Chinese Renaissance”14.

Even though Liang Sicheng had criticized many examples of building in the “Chinese style” which merely copied historical forms and appearance without an understanding of Chinese architecture, he especially criticized some designs from Western architects for the Jesuit missionary buildings. His criticizing was mainly oriented towards the styles of classicism, as Gin-Djih Su explained “their knowledge of the Chinese treatise and proportion of unit module to elements of construction, and the method of obtaining the proper curvature of the roof was pitifully lacking”15. Therefore Liang Sicheng and his colleagues’ contributions was based upon the announced discovery of a method to revive the classical style (correctly). In a sense the

10 Refer to Liang Sicheng: “The Tang Dynasty’s Fo Guang Shi, As We Have Known” Bulletin, Society of Research in Chinese Architecture, Vol. III, Issue 1. Liang Sicheng: “China’s Oldest Wooden Structure”, Asia. July. 1941 11 Arthur Clason Weatherhead: “The History of Collegiate Education in Architecture in the United States”, Los Angeles, 1941. Weatherhead characterrizes Cret thus: “a brilliant designer, with a record of unusual distinction from the École and doubtless the ablest teacher of design America has ever possessed, he has been held in the highest esteem by every student in the university.” 12 Gin-Djih Su: “Chinese Architecture, Past and Contemporary”, Hong Kong, 1964. P. 6 and P. 135-136 13 Liang Sicheng, Liu Zhiping: “Illustrated Reference for Architectural Design”, Preface, Yin Zao Xue She Press, Beijing, 1936 14 Gin-Djih Su recognized the “Chinese Renaissance” is “the use of reinforced concrete and other modern materials in the Chinese- styled buildings”, started with establishment of “the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture” ( Yin Zao Xue She ), however western architects had been adopted earlier in buildings of missionary churches and colleges. Refer to Gin-Djih Su: “Chinese Architecture, Past and Contemporary”, Hong Kong, 1964. P. 6 and P. 135. 15 Ibid. P. 135

4 http://www.paper.edu.cn

“Chinese Renaissance”, (as an attempt Liang Sicheng’s own words), to discover “the grammar of Chinese architecture”.

It was by no means that Liang Sicheng didn’t recognize the nature of classical Chinese wooden architecture. Through his vast investigations and research, he reached many important points of understanding. He noticed secularity and humanity in classical Chinese wooden architecture. He was the first Chinese architect to have understood this characteristic profoundly. In Liang Sicheng’s “History of Chinese Architecture”, which was the first of history text books for architectural student in China, done in 1942, he mentioned the characteristic of secularity in Chinese architecture, but with “self-criticism” and regret: “Chinese structure is based on the material of wood, the existence of architecture is therefore limited with not long time last of wooden structure, the cause certainly was from the concept of no willing to keep thing forever if searching deeply. It seemed there never existed the seeking for the monumentality lasting forever as it was in Egypt, expressing the fact of artificial should be same as nature, being satisfied with the logic metabolism, building should be life and death as natural lives; the building was considered as dresses for wear or coaches for transport, should be changed with times; never with the ambitious to keep the original to be in good shape forever.”16 Apparently, Liang Sicheng understood very well the fact of continuity and humanity in the classical Chinese wooden architecture. It was a pity that his view of architecture was academically based upon classicism, “Banister Fletcher’s History” was his most intimate reference17, in spite of the fact that politically Liang Sicheng would have liked to develop his interpretation of classical Chinese wooden architecture, as a counter point for the interpretations existing in the West. Liang Sicheng was also the person who profoundly understood the unity of architectural form in classical Chinese wooden architecture. He believed that “the Chinese building is a highly ‘organic’ structure” which integrates architectural form, structure and construction. It had been an “indigenous growth”18.

It was a pity that Liang Sicheng in his way of thinking was so deeply ingrained in the confines of the Beaux- Arts based classicism, that he was not able to develop a more holistic view of architecture with it he would have influenced contemporary Chinese architecture profoundly.

The establishment of a Chinese academy of architecture had a strong political orientation. The main issue was Nationalism. Most architectural scholars involved in the Chinese academy of architecture, took “Restoring the National Treasure” or “Revival the National Culture” as their crucial responsibility. To interpret Chinese architecture was politically defined as: “to write down China’s own history of architecture”, and thus to change the unfair or incorrect views of Chinese architecture as developed in the West. This essential new approach was meant to distinguish Chinese research from that of the foreigners (Westerners and Japanese), while in reality, the interpretation they made was not very different since the fundamental view of architecture was quite the same (in spite of the big difference in the documentation of work).

An example taken from the work of Liang Sicheng might illustrate this somehow contradictory situation; Liang Sicheng designed an extended facade for “the Jen Li Company” in Beijing, 1933. It was described as a simplified Chinese “façade” added on to the original Western Neo-Classical building. The well proportioned “mask” was organized with concentrated motifs of the “Chinese classic”, including “Dou Gong” which he emphasized as important structural element19. Thus, we see the contradiction between Western classicism and Chinese Nationalism. Western classicism worked as the solution for the construction and Chinese Nationalism was used for the motifs on the facade (Figure 5).

Alternative: To Interpret Chinese Wooden Architecture with Tectonic View It is undoubtedly that we, as Chinese and Asian, wouldn’t be please to see any interpretation of architecture politically based upon European Centralism. While we should also notice that it was just the architectural classicism and stylistic view, which had been adopted not only by James Fergusson and Banister Fletcher but also Chinese architectural historian like Liang Sicheng, academically worked together with European Centralism. If we search it, the architectural classicism and stylistic view were actually based upon European

16 Liang Sicheng: “History of Chinese Architecture”, Internal used text book in Qing Hua University, Beijing, 1954. Republished by Ming Wen Press, , 1989. P. 9. (Chinese texts, translated by author ) 17 From many references evidenced that “Bannister Fletcher’s History” was the most influential history book for the first generation of Chinese architectural historians. 18 Liang Sicheng: “A Pictorial History of Chinese Architecture: A Study of the Development of Its Structural System and the Evolution of Its Types” MIT Press, Cambridge, 1984, “Preface”. 19 Lin Zhu: “Liang Sicheng and the Renovation for the Jen Li Company, Beijing”, article in “Collected Papers of the Fourth Symposium of Study for Chinese Modern Architecture”, China Architectural and Engineering Press, Beijing, 1993

5 http://www.paper.edu.cn context, typically with the evolution of the stone structured noble architecture. So, it shouldn’t be worked when historians tried to interpret Chinese wooden architecture with stylistic view. From the analysis of Liang Sicheng’s interpretations for Chinese wooden architecture, we see this problem very clear.

We shall turn our view for the interpretation of Chinese wooden architecture on tectonic, other than stylistic. It is important for us to break through the European Centralism not only with identified local value politically, but also tectonic view academically. Because if one local architectural culture developed not along the stylistic evolution, it should be still based upon the tectonic evolution. Chinese wooden architecture can be very well interpreted by tectonic view, and it demonstrated a relatively fair way.

We may get a good lesson about how to interpret Non-European architecture fairly with the tectonic view, just take a review for the French architectural historian Chaussees Auguster Choise (1841-1909) who was from the similar time with Banister Fletcher. With his engineering bass and in the Ecole Polytechnique as the position to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Choise developed the tectonic theory of Viollet le Duc. His “Histore de L’Architecture” 20 was published just three year later than Fletcher’s, had delivered quite different information to readers about Chinese as well as East Asian architecture. As Kenneth Frampton described: “For Choisy the essence of architecture is construction, and all stylistic transformations are merely the logical consequence of technical development: ‘To parade your is to ignore the whole teaching of history. Not so did the great styles of the past come into being. It was in the suggestion of construction that the architect of the great artistic ages found his truest inspiration.’” 21 With this, Choisy’s view approach to Chinese and was tectonic. In the Chapter VI of “CHINE, JAPON” in his book, as in other chapters, he made some analytical drawings of Chinese and Japanese architecture, from spatial organization to detailed wood construction. It was a very interesting piece of work with an attempt to explain the logic of design and construction. From this chapter, we are not able to feel any unfair critical points on Chinese and Japanese architecture. It made more sense than to discuss about the styles of architecture, even though Choise’s approach itself was still quite primitive (Figure 6).

It is quite difficult to say Auguster Choisy was not with the mentality of European Centralism as James Fergusson and Banister Fletcher, it is even impossible to say Liang Sicheng adopted European Centralism. But, Choisy got the fair interpretation of Non-European architecture just because he adopted tectonic view and ignored stylistic view; while Liang slumped into the contradiction occurred when he adopted stylistic view of classicism to interpret Chinese wooden architecture, however politically he was aimed to against European Centralism with Chinese Nationalism.

Zhao Chen Professor of Architecture June 30, 2003

20 Auguste Choisy: “Histore de l’Architecture”, Paris, 1899. 21 Kenneth Frampton: “Modern Architecture, A Critical History” Thames &. Hudson, London, 1985. P.19

6 http://www.paper.edu.cn

Figure 1, James Fergusson (1808-1886): “History of Architecture in All Countries” 1865, London

Figure 2, Tree of Architecture, Sir. Banister F. Fletcher(1866-1953): “History of Architecture on the Comparative Method for the Student Crafts- man, and Amateur” 1896-1996, London http://www.paper.edu.cn

Figure 3, Liang Sicheng’s Stylistic Interpretation for Chinese Wooden Architecture, Style of single building as significance of the history of Chinese architecture

http://www.paper.edu.cn

Figure 4, Liang Sicheng’s Stylistic Interpretation for Chinese Wooden Architecture, “Chinese Order”

http://www.paper.edu.cn

Figure 5, Liang Sicheng’s Stylistic Interpretation for Chinese Wooden Architecture, A renovation project done by Liang Sicheng in 1933. The Jen Li Company. Western Calssicism worked as the solution of construction, Chinese Nationalism worked as motifs on the façade.

http://www.paper.edu.cn

Figure 6, A lesson from Auguster Choise (1841-1909): “Histore de L’Architecture” 1899, Paris