Viollet le Duc, Ruskin, and Semper

Eugene Viollet le Duc, John Ruskin, and Gottfried Semper were all influential figures with ideals that would lead to three different styles of modern architecture in the 19^th century. Even though these three designers were very different from each other, there were a few similarities in their philosophy in which set the foundation to the new architecture style.

Eugene Viollet le Duc, a great French theorist, approached architecture in a rational manner, believing that architecture had to do with the faculty of reasoning. His process of design was highly structured, ignoring the character of design as a motif. Although many artists fell in love with Gothic architecture for its’ intricate craftsmanship, Viollet le Duc admired Gothic for its’ logic of rational construction. It was intellectually satisfying and therefore, rational architecture. Thoroughly apprehensive of methods of construction and the use of materials, he introduced iron as a supporting system for the Gothic cathedrals, a very bold yet logical move. The mergence of rationality and materialistic led him to a general conception of architecture, followed by a process of arguments from the known problem to the unknown solution. This idea formed the foundation of modern architecture. Departure from traditional design methods was also present in his restorations. He believed that restoring “a building is not just to preserve it, to repair, and to remodel it, it is to re-instate it in a complete state such as it may never have been in at any given moment”. Even though he received some criticism for not being a faithful restorer, he received considerable recognition for his restoration work. Being an entirely forward-looking designer, Viollet le Duc was able develop the stepping-stone to modern architecture from the discoveries of his Gothic studies.

Contrary to Viollet le Duc’s philosophy, John Ruskin, a religious writer and speaker, approached architecture in a more emotional manner; with all feeling and no reasoning. The passion he possessed for both architecture and nature is what attracted him to Gothic architecture. Unlike Viollet le Duc who loved Gothic for its’ rationality, Ruskin admired Gothic “as alive with the life which the carver gives it who, loving his work, endows it with beauty”; the very ‘nature of Gothic’. His artistic vision and his hatred for machine would refrain him from consideration of a new style. The notion of introducing new materials, such as iron and glass, infuriated him because the building will then cease to be true to architecture. Being true to architecture was also a philosophy Ruskin carried to restoration. As a backward-looking designer, he believed that restoration “means the most total destruction which a building can suffer”. The life cycle and aging of the building is part of the architecture and therefore, should not be retouched. This belief would be Ruskin’s total significance in modern architecture and later have a significant influence on the distinction between conservation and restoration of old buildings.

Lastly, Gottfried Semper, a German architect whose approach is a combination of the two with the application of scientific methods. Semper sought for rational constructs that would explain forms and after studying the history of works of art, he formulated a theory of design called “practical design”. To reach his goal of establishing a classification of architectural style and form, Semper applied scientific methods of analysis that would explain different types of forms and then divide the form into four categories: hearth, substructure/ platform, the roof, and the enclosure. As architecture evolved, so did the categories; being read separately or together. To further understand the classification systems of artifact, Semper proposed a formula: U=C(x,y,z,t,v,w…). Where U is the result of function, C is the functional expression of the relationship between the coefficients, and the coefficients, in which are subdivided into three categories: materials and techniques, local and ethnological, and personal influences. Furthermore, his major thesis emerged when he realized that “architecture everywhere borrowed its types form pre-architectural conditions of human settlement”. He believed that style should be influenced by socio-political conditions, fulfilling the needs for that particular location, culture, and time. The theory of form relating to context and “The Four Elements of Architecture” would be Semper’s greatest architectural contribution to the modern world.

Pevsner, N. (1969). Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc. Englishness and Frenchness in the Appreciation of Gothic Architecture. (pp. 9-42). London: Thames and Hudson.

Summerson, J. (1949). Viollet-le-Duc and the Rational Point of View. Heavenly Mansion. (pp. 140-159). New York: W.W. Norton.

Van Eck, Caroline. (2006). Nineteenth-Century Architecture and Theory: Gottfried Semper and the Problem of Historicism by Mari Hvattum. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 65, 136 -139. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068251.