PART II: PROGRESSION THROUGH UNIVERSAL SYMBOLS

Civilizations’ timelines are captured in the architecture of universal progression: embryonic simplicity, inchoate mastery, “high” mastery, sometimes a Mannerist revolt against cliché, and inevitably “late” Rococo decadence which, given sufficient time, suffers a backlash, e.g., the modernist backlash against Rococo articulated in Adolf Loos’ article, Ornamentation and Crime. Part II of this paper demonstrates cross-cultural examples of universal progression and even proposes a genetic framework for their understanding.

Building Darwin’s House: Genetic Determinism from Simple to Decadent; How Embellishment Signals Sex, Death, and Rebirth

Nature or Nurture: are we programmed with either symbolic architectural archetypes or an inevitable progression void of practical utility? Restated, are any human constructions and their progressions genetically programmed like packrat middens, beaver lodges, or bird nests?

In order to credit genetics, one must identify universal truths or behaviors. If we are universally predisposed against random homicide, one reasonably infers a genetic basis for our predisposition. Conversely, different civilizations prefer different geometric shapes and architectural forms, so one cannot infer genetic determinism from any single geometric form.

What of our edifice complex—the ceaseless quest for invention and practical improvement—arches improving columns, vaults improving arches, domes improving vaults? One can reasonably infer some genetic determinism in the universality of practical progress. But what if shape morphing progresses universally without regard to practical function? As we review several civilizations, we will identify both practical and, perhaps more significantly, impractical progressions that are cross-cultural, particularly the architectural theme of simplicity (early), progression (middle), mastery (high), excess (late) and ultimately backlash. Civilizations seem to stray inevitably from attaining true, deep, inner meaning—“less is more”— poetically stated by Lao Tzu, father of Chinese Taoism:

The five colors blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavors dull the taste.
The Tao Te Ching

Fine art provides an interesting parallel universe. The evolution from pure, inwardly focused simplicity (flattened space) to outwardly focused decadence (perspective space) is a similar cultural progression. In oil painting, for example, the French Impressionist backlash served to flatten Renaissance linear perspective space which had, in turn, added a third dimension to flat medieval space… you could say the Impressionist backlash “reflattened” medieval space, reconnecting with introspective thought. See Barrett 48, 49.

The architectural progression is almost Darwinian, as if we are genetically programmed for decadence despite its often self-destructive consequences. The peacock and other heavily plumed birds are instructive. Ornamentation attracts females: 1) the peahen intuits male fitness/genetic superiority from tail size because it “wastes” resources, impedes flight, and attracts both predators and competing suitors, 2) the human female swoons to the human male corollary of bright, long feathers: ornamentation (or any ostentatious display of wealth) which similarly wastes resources, attracts predators (invading armies) and competing suitors. But “clothes” make the stud muffin.

Obviously, this paper can’t cover all Western Civilization’s artistic endeavors or Darwin’s theory of natural selection, so let’s limit our examination to the progression of architecture through several civilizations. As the thesis should apply universally, I have categorized progressions as early, middle, high and late, without regard for culture-specific terminology. For example, “Rayonnant” may be subsumed into the category of “high.”

“Walk Like an Egyptian… oh whey oh…” (Bangles)

While Stonehenge may demonstrate this progression with its phased development, Egypt provides a better starting point because of its 1) isolation (no external influences) and 2) its extant archeological record. Furthermore, if any civilization embraced utopian stasis, it was the Egyptians—they progressed despite of, not because of, their culture—thus rendering hollow any argument supporting a cultural, non-genetic basis of progression. Note the final phase, backlash, was precluded by foreign invaders. The backlash topic is more fully explored in “Medieval,” below.
Egyptian funerary architecture by period and progression:

1) Archaic/Early—chronologically: sand holes coved with stone slabs, burial mounds, mounds covered with mud (mustabas). Despite the progression, these were the structures of a simple, inwardly focused civilization.

2) Classic/Middle—Pyramid of Zoser, Imhotep’s break out work, thinking outside the box (no pun intended), building with limestone and creating the first pyramid.

3) High—Pyramids of Giza, last of the pyramids built, they exhibit total mastery and excessiveness, harbinger of a declining (decadent) civilization.

4) Late—Tomb of Hatshepsut, signifies a declining civilization and a defensive response to vandals who previously sacked the pyramids. While the colonnaded tri-level terrace, sixteen-sided columns, and porches appear to me as embellishment, Scully disagrees. “So Hatschepsut’s tomb is in one sense entirely natural…” (Scully 30).

“Athena, I had no idea how much I'd need her….” (The Who)

The Greek progression is rather straightforward. However this summary does not review Minoan, Mycenaean and outlying non-Athenian influenced progressions as Athens and its environs/client states are far better documented. The Archaic/Early period is cobbled from the entire region (there was little activity in Athens itself), especially the simple, pragmatic Dorians.

Greek columns, by period and progression:

1) Archaic/Early – Primitive or ancient Doric, “manly beauty, naked and unadorned” (Kostof quoting Vitruvius 131) was the first order to “mature:” Temple of Artemis at Kerkyra, c. 600 BCE, Corfu, Greece (Kostof 123,4). Also, see Temples of Paestum.

The feminine Ionic (presumably clothed, adorned and springing from a Dorian rib bone), developed contemporaneously in other locals: Artemision at Ephesos c. 560 BCE, Ephesos, Turkey (Kostof 131).

2) Classical Athens/Middle (400’s BCE) – Development of the Akropolis—“the ready acquiescence of nature to human action” (Scully 65)— demonstrates both incipient decadence and the standardization of the Classical Orders: a) mostly Doric (see the Parthenon and Propylaia), b) some Ionic (see Temple of Athena Nike), and c) rarely Corinthian. The Temple of Neptune, Paestum exemplifies unembellished Doric massiveness (Fletcher 131), but the Erechtheion’s caryatids and pilasters are notable exceptions to strict Order.

Like the Egyptians, the Athenians made a conscious effort to avoid decadence, and they mostly succeeded. “The mettle of Greek built form lies in seemly appearance” (Kostof 123).

3) Hellenistic/High – (from Alexander to the Romans) a) Corinthian (mostly, in a sharp break with tradition), b) Ionic (sometimes, but in reformed dimensions), and c) Doric (rarely). Their early decadence (decline) is especially ironic as the Corinthian acanthus-designed capital is “a motif often used on fifth century funerary stelai” (Kostof 165). Here is additional evidence of Hellenistic “High” progression:

a. “The elegant Ionic and Corinthian orders were made increasingly more elaborate…” (Roth 241).

b. Corinthian columns had been used for decorative internal use, but “[Their] use in external colonnades was a Hellenistic development” (Fletcher 105). Also, no distinctive entablature was used until this time.

4) Late/Romans – It seems that later decadence and flamboyance of Greek columns occurs in Rome, not Greece, as few buildings were constructed during the late Hellenistic period.

“A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” (Sondheim)

Early Romans, like ancient Dorians, were simple and pragmatic as exemplified by orthogonal city planning and the Stoic philosophy of Greek-influenced emperor Marcus Aurelius. However, they still followed the inevitable progression of both prior and future civilizations. While Roman decadence didn’t follow the progression as closely as other cultures, they built on an increasingly grander scale which similarly is symptomatic of decadence. Note that there are few published plates of early Roman architecture so the Internet is used as a resource.

Roman decorative (non-structural) elements and grand scale progressions:

1) Kings/Early – massive Tuscan Order similar to archaic Doric, but even simpler, sans fluting. Romans integrated the simplicity of Etruscan styles into their own architecture.

2) Republic/Middle – While most constructions remain fairly unembellished, e.g., colonnaded Roman Forum buildings, Corinthian was introduced.

3) Empire/High – Grand scale, including baths, Flavian amphitheatre (decadent in both form and function), and the Corinthian/Ionic volute hybrid “Composite” Order. Obvious antecedence of decadence.

4) Mannerist– Roman Baroque curves with Corinthian post and beam baptistery construction, Temple of Venus, Syria (3rd C. CE).

5) Late - the heavily decorated, stylistic and thematic collage, Arch of Constantine (315 CE).

I'm Gonna get Medieval (even Gothic) on Your Ass!” (Pulp Fiction)

Gothic architecture most consistently follows the progression, encouraged by and possibly resulting from, its unifying thematic purpose: “It is symbolic; its builders want it to mean something” (Scully 123). In its progression, Christendom replaces inner transcendence (self-actualization of God, perhaps found in the Dark Ages) with ornamentation, as if God/Goddess were ornamental herself. “Holy Mother, nice fan vaults and open tracery, but don’t wear that stuff to my school; how embarrassing!” It also lays the foundation for the Renaissance backlash which, in turn, lays the foundation for modernity’s backlash against the Renaissance.
This paper will focus mostly on northern and central Europe as to avoid confusion with Islam-inspired progressions which are not covered. As a large number of post-Dark Age examples were available, they are used extensively:

1) Dark Ages/Early – Mostly inwardly focus on afterlife, characterized by simple, dark structures and defensive fortifications. Not much built in Northern and Central Europe except for Romanesque basilicas.

2) Early Middle/Carolingian “renaissance” – Greek and Roman revival, but crude v. the original. The progression also portends early Gothic.
• Aachen, the palace of Charlemagne (Germany, 800 (Kostof 277).
• Monastery of Saint-Martin-du-Conigou (France, 1001-1026)
• Harlech Castle (Wales, 1283-1290)
• Abby Church of Saint-Denis (France, 1135 – 1144). Sugar’s early Gothic creation.

3) High/Rayonnant – Man looks to the skies for divinity, characterized by light and height.
• Notra Dame Amiens (France, 1220 – 1269)
• Durham Cathedral (England, 1093-1133)
• Church of Saint-Pierre, Beauvais (France 1225-1548) pushing the envelope or “ribs” too far.

4) Late/Flamboyant in France, Perpendicular in England – decadent excess of structurally unnecessary ribbing, use of fan vaults, narrowing of mullions, dramatically increasing window size, open traceries, and excessive “flame-like” friezes.
• Rouen Cathedral (France, 1434-1514)
• Gloucester Cathedral (England, 1337-1351)
• King’s College Chapel (England, 1446-1515)

A Renaissance “Man for all Seasons” (Sir Thomas Moore)

Renaissance architecture repudiates Gothic with Greco-Roman revival. As fundamentally derivative, there is little to improve or reject, so the progression reflects only modest changes.

1) Early – Brunelleschi’s work mostly follows the Roman basilica model, with the Florence Cathedral dome a notable exception, although it still had a Gothic facade.

2) Middle – Alberti embellished the Santa Maria Novella façade.

3) High – Bramante brought the Greco-Roman revival to its “perfect” conclusion, the Tempietto recalling “Roman architecture at its purest…” (Roth 272). Here “high” means perfect copy instead of embellishment.

4) Mannerist – Michelangelo “took liberties” with the established order; ornamentation in “composite” order. Ovals replaced circles.

5) Late – Romano dramatically “flouts” classical convention.