ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • 29-39 Piranesi’s arguments in the Carceri Fatma İpek EK [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Yaşar University, İzmir, Turkey Received: November 2017• Final Acceptance: September 2018 Abstract Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) is an important Italian architect with his seminal theses in the debates on the ‘origins of architecture’ and ‘aesthetics’. He is numbered foremost among the founders of modern archaeology. But Piranesi was misinterpreted both in his day and posthumously. One of the most important vectors of approach yielding misinterpretation of Piranesi derived from the phe- nomenon comprising the early nineteenth-century Romanticist reception of Pi- ranesi’s character and work. Therefore, the present study firstly demonstrates that such observations derive not from an investigation of the work itself, nor from an appraisal of the historical context, but owe to the long-standing view in western culture that identifies the creator’s ethos with the work and interprets the work so as to cohere with that pre-constructed ethos. Thus the paper aims at offering a new perspective to be adopted while examining Piranesi’s works. This perspective lies within the very scope of understanding the reasons of the misinterpretations, the post-Romanticist perception of the ‘artist’, and Piranesi’s main arguments on the aesthetics, origins of architecture, and law. Keywords Carceri series, Eighteenth century discussions, Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Post- doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2018.21347 doi: romanticist interpretation, Romanticist perception. 30 1. Introduction ethos. In fact, the pervasive descrip- In the architectural, historical, and tion of Piranesi’s work as cited above archaeological context of the eighteenth goes hand in hand with the descrip- century, Italian architect Giovanni Bat- tion of the biographical character as tista Piranesi (1720-1778) played an im- ‘obscure’ and ‘perverse’.3 For Piranesi’s portant role. He posited crucial theses Vasi, Candelabri, Cippi, Sarcofagi, Tri- in the debates on the ‘origins of archi- podi, Lucerne ed Ornamenti Antichi tecture’ and ‘aesthetics’. He is numbered Disegn (Vases, Candelabra, Low Pil- foremost among the founders of mod- lars, Sarcophagi, Tripods, Lanterns and ern architecture and archaeology. But Antique Design Ornaments; 1778), a Piranesi was misinterpreted both in his work depicting Piranesi’s designs of day and posthumously. The vectors of objects including vases and candelabra approach yielding misinterpretation of (Piranesi, 1778; 1836), ‘it is all done Piranesi derived mainly from the phe- with obsessional, with almost mor- nomenon comprising the early nine- bid precision,’ claims Joseph Rykwert, teenth-century Romanticist reception ‘the morbidity is characteristic, since of Piranesi’s character and work. This the whole of Piranesi’s overwhelming kind of interpretation derived from output is the celebration of his necro- Piranesi’s position on aesthetics and philiac passion for the glory of ancient origins of architecture, and served the Rome’ (Rykwert, 1980, p. 370). Man- identification of him as ‘unclassifiable’. fredo Tafuri agrees, presenting Pirane- In this context, the Carceri series si as a ‘“wicked architect,” who, in the bear primary importance because they monstrousness of his contaminations, have been accepted as transparent reveals the cracks guiltily repressed by works particularly reflecting Pirane- a deviant rigor’ (Tafuri, 1978, p. 47). 1For an implication si’s so-called darkness, obscurity and These are astounding words as far of ‘darkness’ and madness.1 He was labelled with this as descriptive terms go where architec- ‘madness’ in the Carceri see Tafuri, kind of adjectives; furthermore, his tural historians as eminent as Rykwert 1978, pp. 26, 32-34, arguments on architecture and history and Tafuri are concerned. Far from any 40; Wilton-Ely, were almost imprisoned between the architectural or design consideration, 1978, pp. 81, 89; walls of the Carceri. Thus the present unabashedly they target a psychologi- Wilton-Ely, 1993, study aims at offering a new perspec- cal being. Contemporary Piranesi crit- pp. 46-48. tive to be adopted while examining icism participates in an understanding 2The work is Piranesi’s works. This perspective lies which we may summarize by Georg- further perceived within the very scope of understanding es-Louis Leclerc’s (1707-1788) prover- as ‘exaggerated’, ‘extravagant’, the reasons of the misinterpretations, bial Le style c’est l’homme même: the ‘paradoxical’, the post-Romanticist perception of the style is the man himself. Leclerc’s iden- ‘absurd’, ‘hermetic’, ‘artist’, and Piranesi’s main arguments tification dates to 1753, which makes ‘frenetic’, or on the aesthetics, origins of architec- him Piranesi’s contemporary (Leclerc, ‘ludicrous’. For ture, and law. 1872; 1896). Despite the fact that we the evaluation of ‘obscure’, shall argue that there is a direct line ‘extravagant’, and 2. Le style c’est l’homme même between Tafuri and Rykwert’s assess- ‘excessive’, see As the heading of the study implies, ment and Leclerc’s statement, Leclerc Rykwert, 1980, this reading largely disagrees with cur- had not necessarily meant the remark pp. 364, 370; rent interpretations of Piranesi’s work. in a negative sense. Piranesi, however, for ‘excessive’, ‘paradoxical’, Thus, contemporary scholarship has may very well have been the first whose ‘absurd’, ‘hermetic’, taken Piranesi’s work as representing work was evaluated by Leclerc’s state- and ‘irrational’, a style of architecture described as ‘ob- ment, already in his own lifetime, and, see Tafuri, 1978, scure’, ‘excessive’, ‘irrational’, and the as we are going to see, with negative ef- p. 27 et passim.; like.2 Therefore, the present study first- fect in the long-run. for ‘frenetic’, ‘ludicrous’, ly demonstrates that such observations When we trace the conception iden- ‘extravagant’, see derive not from an investigation of the tifying ethos and style, we find that it Penny, 1978, pp. 7, work itself, nor from an appraisal of has ancient roots. Already rhetorical 10, 30; for ‘frenetic’, the historical context, but owe to the philosophers such as Aristotle (384 ‘extravagant’, see long-standing view in western culture BC-322 BC) and Longinus (first cen- Wilton-Ely, 1993, pp. 12, 18; for that identifies the creator’s ethos with tury AD), identified style and the cre- similar evaluations the work and interprets the work so ator’s (orator’s or writer’s) character see Wilton-Ely, as to cohere with that pre-constructed and described style as the direct ex- 2002, pp. 16, 27. ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • F. İ. Ek 31 innate character. Aristotle’s identifica- tion proved seminal. As we are going to see, the depictions of Piranesi in his own lifetime attributed a lofty char- acter to him in conjunction with his work in the design of monumental and sublime architecture. Misreading the eighteenth-century code for sublime monumentality, later critics were going to identify it with dark perversity. The view identifying the creator’s ethical character with the work con- tinued in the eighteenth century as above all Leclerc’s statement evinced. In fact, the placement of Piranesi’s work and character to the darker side of the human may be traced back to 3 For this evaluation the modern re-emergence, with new of Piranesi’s character, see vigour, of the classical idea around 1750. Piranesi’s 1750 depiction by the Tafuri, 1978, pp. Figure 1. Felice Polanzani, portrait of 41, 47; Rykwert, Piranesi, Opere varie, 1750. Venetian Felice Polanzani (1700-1783), 1980, p. 389; published in the former’s Opere varie Penny, 1978, pp. pression of the psycho-ethical nature di architettura (Miscellaneous works 29, 80. ‘Obsessive’, ‘chaotic’, ‘absurd’, of the ‘man’. While speaking of pro- in architecture; 1750), may be read in and ‘frenetic’ are priety (decorum), with the intention this context [Figure 1] (Piranesi, 1750; other familiar of determining that ‘the style reflects 1836). The facial expression is far from adjectives that have the man himself’, ‘Words are like men’, demure and humble. Piranesi’s charac- been found fit to wrote Aristotle in the Rhetoric (Aristo- ter stands heightened, with a broken describe Piranesi’s character, as has tle, 1994, 1404b 8-12) and, as James A. arm as in the relics of Antiquity which been the diagnosis Coulter has argued, proceeded to map the burgeoning field of archaeology of ‘suicidal mania’. out the ways in which linguistic and was uncovering. The Antiquity here For the description human ethos were analogous (Coulter, ascribed to Piranesi derives from the of ‘obsessive’, 1976, p. 18). According to Coulter, Ar- eighteenth-century theory of sublime ‘chaotic’, and ‘absurd’, see Tafuri, istotle’s phrase of ‘Words are like men’ architecture to which Piranesi contrib- 1978, pp. 36, 49; implied that the canons of behavioural uted very substantially both in design for ‘obsessive’, see propriety were applicable to composi- and in writing. Ancientness and mon- Rykwert, 1980, p. tional style: the style of a man was his umentality, a heightened stance and 370; for ‘frenetic’, dress (Aristotle, 1994, 1405a 10-14). darkened surroundings were essential see Penny, 1978, p. 5 30, and Wilton-Ely, Similarly in the Poetics, Aristotle iden- characteristics of the sublime. The 1993, p. 12; and for tified genre with author’s character: clouds and the play of light and shad- ‘suicidal mania’, ‘Poetry, then, was divided according ow surrounding the architect’s bust, see Jamieson, 1956, to the innate ethics [of the poet]: for the book symbolizing his vast learning p. 106. those who were more solemn imitated and intellectual authority signified to 4For the continuity decent doings and the doings of decent the eighteenth-century mind the na- of the identification persons, while those who were meaner ture of both Piranesi’s character and his of ethos and style from Antiquity imitated those of foul persons, at first work.