Semper, Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc

Semper, Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc

Gottfried Semper, John Ruskin, and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc made use of their architectural and theoretical knowledge to introduce ideas leading to Modern Architecture in the 19^th Century.  This blog post will give insight to thoughts of Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-de-Luc. It will identify main points in each theory and discuss works created by them.

Gottfried Semper had a neutral aspect to his studies and often linked socio-political conditions to his theories. Semper believed that style be seen as a reflection of socio-political conditions. His goals about spatial configuration may be distinguished and understood by socio-political contexts and conditions. This meaning that form is persuaded by that time, as opposed to forms of the past. Through this theory, he developed  “The Four Elements of Architecture,” which aim to classify systematically architectural forms as typologies that are: “Hearth,” “Substructure,” “Roof,” and “Enclosure.” These can be classified as the social nucleus, to raise the hearth from the damp ground, to protect the fire, and to keep out the elements. Semper’s idea that the roof and its supports are a continuous element led to the design of the curtain wall. By doing this, Semper may have been trying to create a base for architectural forms to be more clearly defined into familiar styles, while also being able to give meaning to the classified groups. Gottfried Semper worked on written work for the later part of his life called, “Der Still.” The goal of this writing was to understand and clarify process. It later became mistakenly understood to advocate materialism and functionalism.

Semper Opera House

John Ruskin does not agree with Semper about forms deriving from construction. Ruskin rejected the classical tradition in architecture, similar to Semper’s, as repressive standardization lacking moral value. Rather, he emphasized the importance of a nature and natural form. His thoughts were influenced by religion, mixing aesthetics and morality. The natural forms relate to his ideas about preservation. This belief influenced the distinction between conservation and restoration of old buildings. He was against restoration because he believed the history of the building would be removed if restored. Therefore, he believed that buildings should be preserved. By restoring a buildings form, not only is the initial intent of the architect jeopardized, but also is the overall aesthetic of the building. Ruskin said, “…it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture.”

Eugene Viollet-le-Duc focused mainly on architectural restoration, which completely contradicted John Ruskin’s thoughts. He was often strongly criticized due to his choices of restoration.  His architecture was known to be out of character of the current styles, as he believed in creating complete form although they may have never existed. The Carcassonne restoration is considered to be interpretive and not strongly authentic. This can be considered a renewal, which contradicts to Ruskin’s idea of preserving architecture. Viollet-le-Duc’s general policy of restoration is a free interpretation of a building.

Finished reconstruction of Carcassonne by Viollet-le-Duc

After comparing Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc, it is clearly observed that they have different thoughts and reasoning’s for architecture.