Architectural Structures Anna Samsonov ARCH 241 Four architects. Four masterpieces. Four domes. Prof. Pieter Sijpkes McGill School of Architecture 12/14/14 I few weeks ago I was returning to Vienna by train from the West. A sculptor from Paris was sharing my compartment. As we approached the outskirts, he suddenly pointed to the view on his left and exclaimed in astonishment: “What is that?!” There, on the long slope above the tiny village of Baumgarten – Gustav Klimt was born there, an omen of modernity – was a white city, sparkling in the bright summer sun. Crowned by a golden dome of a white marble church… “That is something very special,” said my Frenchman. “That, I have to see.” – Ludwig Hevesi, “Otto Wagners Moderne Kirche,” 1907 Art critic and “advocate of all things modern in Vienna” Ludwig Hevesi thus began his newspaper column on October 6, 1907 (Topp 130). This anecdote pays tribute to Otto Wagner’s Kirche am Steinhof, but in fact can be extended to other Viennese buildings as well. Karlskirche, Kunsthistorisches Museum and the Secession building are all breathtaking examples of Viennese architecture, which strike with their beauty, monumentality and balanced proportion. Each of the four masterpieces is crowned with a dome, which in each case plays the leading role among other architectural elements. Through the evolution of the dome we see the progression that Viennese architecture undergoes, from the boasting theatrical baroque to the sleek and streamlined Art Nouveau. Yet these buildings are not just pleasing to the eye, but to the body and to the soul as well. Once inside, one gets the feeling of being in the right place and in the right time. Photo by Aleksandra Zinovyeva In 1713 a serious plague struck Vienna. Emperor Charles VI vowed to build a church for his name saint Charles Borromeus if the plague would stop (this saint was traditionally honored for curing the plague in sixteenth-century Milan). Four months later the epidemic was over and the architect Fischer von Erlach won the royal commission (Fergusson 318). Most of the studies on the church focus on the exuberant façade, which is often compared to a number of sources ranging from Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome to Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. However, there was no single prototype because Fischer’s conception went hand in hand with the plague iconography. Besides a portrayal of plague victims in the pediment, St. Charles Borromeus also appears three times: in the dome fresco, the stucco altarpiece, and as an “acroterion” on the pediment. Frances Fergusson believes that the plague theme extends further into the architectural concept, arguing that the rational for the two pillars may be found in the Austrian tradition of plague columns (320). However, Esther Dotson supposes that the two columns were nothing more than Fischer’s tribute to the imperial patron. Emblem of Charles VI was the imperial crown (topped by a cross) and framed by two columns. Dotson argues that the innovative architect found a way to incorporate the Habsburg emblem into the design of the Church. Indeed, Karlskirche, seen from upfront, boasts a dome with a cross and a portico framed by two Roman triumphal columns. Image from Wikimedia Like many memorial churches Karlskirche has a central plan and dominant dome. The church is symmetric yet powerfully dynamic at the same time. One’s eyes slide past the central axis, through the dome and its base to the portico and stairway, and shift through the plane of the side towers past the freestanding columns. “On the approach from the suburbs, the arched openings through the wings create a dramatic transition to the church square. Contemporary views stress the movement around and through the wide façade. Arriving at its center, one can look through the main portal along the interior axis, to the climax in the central golden window” (Dotson 120). Photos by Aleksandra Zinovyeva Inside, Fischer plays with the contrast between light and shadow. He exaggerates the transitions between narrow shadowed spaces and bright openings by the use of an oval dome over the entire congregational area, and a smaller dome over the apse. “From the exterior steps and porch the interior seems darker with only a narrow band of light under the main dome space, and deep shadow again before the central window’s symbolically charged brilliance. As one enters, however, the sequence of light and shadow becomes clear. Shadowed columns form the transition from the windowless vestibule to an oval space evenly lighted from two levels of windows in the dome and from the side chapels and wide transepts. Under the oval dome the space is strongly directional. The three arches at the altar end form a triumphal arch. From the clear rational light of the congregational area, one looks through the dark barrel vault behind the tall central arch to the transcendent brightness of the expanded, separately vaulted and lighted space behind the altar, in which the altar itself participates only when the candles are lighted for a service” (Dotson 121). Photo by Miroslav Petrasko Source unknown The Kunsthistorisches museum in Vienna was first open to the public in 1891, uniting under its roof the extensive art collections of the Habsburgs and serving itself as a monument to the royal collectors. The famous German architect Gottfried Semper and his younger Austrian colleague Karl von Hassenauer were commissioned for what was then, perhaps, the most prestigious architectural project. The museum was built on Ringstrasse, the newly created circular road surrounding the inner district of Vienna. But as opposed to other civil buildings, which face the busy boulevard, Kunsthistorisches overlooks its architectural twin, the Museum of Natural History, across a landscaped plaza (Bischoff 23). Image from traveltoeat.com The historicist architects consciously imitated the style of the Italian Renaissance thus referring to the epoch traditionally associated with the heyday of the arts and sciences. “The main façade is lent a pronounced vertical accent by the interposed structure with its cupola, which is subtly echoed by the two corner risalits. Elements articulating the façade are distributed evenly over the entire building. The elevation of the façade is composed of approximately equal measure of a base zone of rough-hewn stone and giant Tuscan pillars, and an upper zone having three quarter Ionic columns. Rectangular windows in the basement level, and round arch windows in the ground floor are distributed evenly in the base zone. A triglyph frieze and console cornice define the beginning of the first floor with its Ionic Serlian windows. A narrow meander frieze runs along the border of the attic story, which is provided with rectangular windows. The frieze in the architrave area is decorated alternately with the Austrian Imperial Crown and monogram “F[ranz] J[oseph]”. A balustrade completes the façade” (Bischoff 160). Inside the museum, the vestibule, staircase and cupola hall dramatically unite to create an appropriately impressive stage for the achievements of the arts. In the vestibule, a vault with an oculus rises above the black and white floor. This aperture in the vault affords a first view of the cupola hall above. The impressive staircase leads the visitors to the next level. Upon reaching the landing, visitors find their attention directed to the cupola hall, “the sacrally charged finale to the architectural orchestration” (Bischoff 163). Photo by Michael Tulipan Photos by Aleksandra Zinovyeva Semper believed that the “inner harmony of exhibition rooms” could be achieved “not only by differing decoration” but also “adapting the architectural style” to the objects exhibited. The architect admitted: “The most difficult challenge is to combine this diversity with the equally desired harmony of its parts, and unite them into a whole”. Semper and Hasenauer masterfully overcame this design challenge. Each room reads as its own work of art, yet together they form a unity, beautifully interwoven by the marble staircase and the cupola hall. Source unknown Yet the Kunsthistorisches Museum is more than just a superb piece of architecture commemorating Austrian rulers and their art collections. Victoria Newhouse notes that Semper and Hassenauer succeeded in creating “an intimate dialog between container and contents, ideal for the exhibition of art.” They took into consideration the art that would be exhibited, creating large, skylit rooms to accommodate larger paintings and intimate alcoves along the peripheral walls across the windows for smaller works. The architects even designed a taller gallery specifically tailored for Rubens’s overscaled paintings. The variety of room shapes and sizes and established clear paths that guide the visitors through the museum all contribute to an unforgettable experience (324). Photo by Aleksandra Zinovyeva Photo by Prestel In 1897 a group of artists and architects including Gustav Klimt, Joseph Maria Olbrich, Josef Hoffman and Koloman Moser broke off from the official Viennese artists’ exhibition association protesting its increased corruption and commercialization. They formed their own group called the Vienna Secession. They believed it was their mission to expose the public to the development of modern art abroad and to emphasize artistic integrity, rather than certain schools or styles. They wrote provisions ensuring that one group member could not control who could exhibit and where. Architect Joseph Maria Olbrich was an obvious choice for designing the new exhibition space, later known as the Secession building, since he was a member of the Secession, dissatisfied with the biased conservatism of the Viennese association (Topp 30). Although he has been exposed to a vast number of approaches to architecture having studied under Camillo Sitte, Carl Hasenauer, and later having worked with Otto Wagner, the Secession building was his first project as an independent architect. (Topp 36). Joseph Maria Olbrich, Front of the Secession, 1898 The Secession group originally wanted to build their headquarters on the Ringstrasse but their request was not approved.