Friday, November 20, 2015
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Thinking Gesture in figures and animals
Here is a short post on thinking gesture as it relates to not only people but animals as well.
The focus of this post is to highlight an understanding of animal anatomy/drawing which will emphasize design. As always my hope is that the techniques used in drawing a figure are understood to be flexible and as such able to adapt to designing animals, characters, or creature(s).
Gesture drawing at its core entails the simple usage of line (shape, value, etc.) to capture a very complex reality about the subject being depicted. Specifically when using line, asymmetry and curves provide a visual pathway from which movement is exaggerated and the workings of passive and active anatomy develop (see below examples).
The intention of this is to build an understanding of how and in what ways, through gesture, figure(s) and animal(s) can be treated consistently. This is completely possible since through the process of abstraction, gesture highlights the same qualities in animals as it does it the figure. Further, for the purposes of drawing both animals and figures, gesture serves to initiate the image thematically/theatrically and lay the groundwork for the remainder of the drawings development.
The drawing of animals and figures alike depend on a clear and purposeful idea to establish the integrity of that drawing as a instrument of communication – this could be a mood, emotion, narrative prompt, character/creature archetype, etc. Among other things, a gesture can allow for a more classical, studied interpretation of the natural design of the form. The latter will be the focus of our current study.
Figures and Animals can be compared within gesture by considering similarities in the following areas:
Story - (Idea!) The animal/figure should always become a vehicle for a establishing mood, emotion, expression, action, etc. I usually consider story to be concerned primarily with the narrative impact the drawing/design should take.
Weight/Balance – Figures and animals alike need to feel as if they are drawn according to the influence of gravity. This is additionally an important theme in the construction/design of the 8 parts of each. A main difference is that figures are more of a vertical balancing act while many quadrupeds show a variation on a bridge design.
Movement – An obvious and inherent quality to animals and figures. This becomes more important to analyze when studying the variety of animal types, qualities and types of movements, etc.
Proportion – the relative organization of the 8 parts
We might consider the act of making a gesture drawing the interpretation of these 4 categories as expressed through a rhythmic organization of the 8 major masses. Below is an image showing some basic differences (among the 8 parts) between the horse, big cat, and human. The goal in this initial survey is to understand the form entirely as the result of function.
Introduction to the Spine and differences between figure and animals
As the gesture is dependent on the positioning and or attitude between the 8 parts, this section will focus on the most important of the eight: the spine. Notice the varying lengths, height, and positioning between the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar.
The spine is the most important part to consider and where one should begin a study of comparative anatomy or gesture. What the spine allows us to understand is the inherent design of each anatomical form/machine. Each spine is built from the 3 groups – cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. However, each animal can have variation in these groups: through an increased number of vertebrae, angle, and or stability of the spine (bracing ligaments), etc. What is important to keep in mind is that the spine determines the kind of design we ultimately experience. An important principle, as it will allow us a technical constant in objectively analyzing a number of different types.
Process
Gesture drawings begins with a studied interpretation of the spine, those qualities are then synthesized into asymmetrical rhythms. In the figure, the gesture begins with a very simple oval/sphere for the head and then moves from a line representing the cervical, through the thoracic, and finally into the lumbar. From this point the legs are integrated favoring the weight bearing side (if one exists) and lastly working into the arms. With this as a basic constant, an animal can be observed in the exact same sequence. Just remember to tailor the approach for variations to reflect unique differences such as direction of the spine, length of different parts of the spine, particular types of movements, etc.
Below is an example of the same sequence of lines used in a gesture drawing of a cat, horse, and human. See if you can match the lines used from one subject to the next to see the unity in the approach, but variation in describing types.
Below is an example of the same sequence of lines used in a gesture drawing of a cat, horse, and human. See if you can match the lines used from one subject to the next to see the unity in the approach, but variation in describing types.
Notice when comparing the figure and horse the similarities resulting at this stage in the gesture. While the horse has the same 3 basic rhythms (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar) notice that the gesture has taken in to account the variations of those types by extending the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar as well as making this a horizontal passage. After establishing the torso, the rear legs are developed, beginning with the weight bearing side (if applicable), and then the forelegs.
Hopefully this helps in seeing continuity between these two subjects through a consistent approach to gesture. If you're interested in looking further into it, I might recommend checking out work by Joe Weatherly or Jonathan Kuo.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Bernini study
Since seeing it in Rome I've been fascinated by Bernini's The Rape of Proserpina. Here are a few lecture images playing around with attempting to break down the space, movement, and composition from a few angles.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Why should we care about construction? Part 5 - Conclusion
Hey All, this is the last entry for my brief investigation into the historical practices of construction. I think this is the last kind of historical survey I'll do for a while. Hopefully you found something of interest or thought provoking in it. Comments and thoughts are appreciated as always.
To provide one final example, I will consider a few of Michelangelo's sketches. Specifically, I'll be looking for examples of this transformative form language (discussed in prior posts) acting as a conduit between ideas of architecture and anatomy.
Michelangelo’s relationship to anatomy stood in contrast to Da Vinci’s, being much more focused on the external anatomy or surface anatomy. While Michelangelo was involved and participated in anatomical dissections (some sources indicate three separate locations that Michelangelo practiced human dissections), his interest was more the design and variation of the surface anatomy, as well as its potential for movement.[1] In other words, Michelangelo may not have studied the internal muscles, organs, and deep tissue that Da Vinci was clearly preoccupied with. Michelangelo, while not making his thoughts widely available/clear on the subject, did write in a letter circa 1560 that "there is no question but that architectural members reflect the members of Man and that those who do not know the human body cannot be good architects."[2] This quote gives us another consistent view on the subject of the study of man and its benefit to the architect. Further, consistent themes from above are present, primarily the idea that architecture and anatomy are the result of the same learned process or form language. The achievement of this skill and/or artistic vision is what leads one to a superior sense of composition or design in architecture. This design is one which balances ideal forms or proportions while attempting to align the audience with a highly rational frame of mind. We might also be understand Michelangelo’s criticism of Antonio da Sangallo as one who may not have understood these design principles of the antique manner. As Sangallo was primarily an architect, and without the anatomical knowledge that Michelangelo possessed, may have lacked this greater sensitivity to design and too literally or didactically applied Vitruvian principles for Michelangelo’s tastes.
To provide one final example, I will consider a few of Michelangelo's sketches. Specifically, I'll be looking for examples of this transformative form language (discussed in prior posts) acting as a conduit between ideas of architecture and anatomy.
Michelangelo’s relationship to anatomy stood in contrast to Da Vinci’s, being much more focused on the external anatomy or surface anatomy. While Michelangelo was involved and participated in anatomical dissections (some sources indicate three separate locations that Michelangelo practiced human dissections), his interest was more the design and variation of the surface anatomy, as well as its potential for movement.[1] In other words, Michelangelo may not have studied the internal muscles, organs, and deep tissue that Da Vinci was clearly preoccupied with. Michelangelo, while not making his thoughts widely available/clear on the subject, did write in a letter circa 1560 that "there is no question but that architectural members reflect the members of Man and that those who do not know the human body cannot be good architects."[2] This quote gives us another consistent view on the subject of the study of man and its benefit to the architect. Further, consistent themes from above are present, primarily the idea that architecture and anatomy are the result of the same learned process or form language. The achievement of this skill and/or artistic vision is what leads one to a superior sense of composition or design in architecture. This design is one which balances ideal forms or proportions while attempting to align the audience with a highly rational frame of mind. We might also be understand Michelangelo’s criticism of Antonio da Sangallo as one who may not have understood these design principles of the antique manner. As Sangallo was primarily an architect, and without the anatomical knowledge that Michelangelo possessed, may have lacked this greater sensitivity to design and too literally or didactically applied Vitruvian principles for Michelangelo’s tastes.
Fig. 1 Michelangelo, Design
for Laurentian library door, c. 1526, pen and brown ink over
stylus, 28.4x20.9cm, The British Museum.
Fig. 2 Michelangelo, Male Nude
Fig. 3 - Detail Comparison
To
provide as example, I have paired Michelangelo’s Sketch of Doorway into Library (fig. 1), a study for the doorway/entrance into the Laurentian
library (at San Lorenzo) next to that of an anatomical study of
the front view of a male figure. The front view of the figure (fig. 2), specifically the torso, shows a striking
similarity in shape, proportion, and design to that of Michelangelo’s
doorway. The doorway almost mimics the proportion and design of the anatomy of the
torso part for part (fig. 3). The curving arch above the doorway may be thought to mimic
that of the trapezius, the proportion beneath and straight bar under, the
design of the clavicle and pectoralis. On either side of the doorway stand
columns that in size and proportion closely resemble the surface anatomy of the
midsection, primarily that of the external obliques and serratus anterior.
Lastly, the central opening in the doorway itself clearly reflects the
proportion and overall shape design of abdominal wall (fig. 3). Like da Vinci’s rib cage transforming into a dome, Michelangelo has here used the
abstracted proportion and design of the surface anatomy to inform his design of
a doorway.
My final example is a drawing of the bases of pillars for the New Sacristy (fig. 4). In this sketch, Michelangelo shows three columns at the base in profile. The last of the three deserves special interest as it appears to have an eye, nose, and mouth shown in profile. It appears as if Michelangelo has used a scream or dramatic expression in order to resolve his silhouette. In this final example, there is no extended transformation as both architectural motif and figure exist as one thing and seem to embody or be the other directly. Once again, this speaks to his ability to have synthesized principles central to philosophies of antiquity with a geometric order through which those principles are made manifest. As the human figure continues to read as central to the architect's practice, it follows that this was the subject on which these principles are exercised and/or developed.
Fig. 4 - Michelangelo, bases of pillars for the New Sacristy, red chalk,1519-20.
My final example is a drawing of the bases of pillars for the New Sacristy (fig. 4). In this sketch, Michelangelo shows three columns at the base in profile. The last of the three deserves special interest as it appears to have an eye, nose, and mouth shown in profile. It appears as if Michelangelo has used a scream or dramatic expression in order to resolve his silhouette. In this final example, there is no extended transformation as both architectural motif and figure exist as one thing and seem to embody or be the other directly. Once again, this speaks to his ability to have synthesized principles central to philosophies of antiquity with a geometric order through which those principles are made manifest. As the human figure continues to read as central to the architect's practice, it follows that this was the subject on which these principles are exercised and/or developed.
In
conclusion, the study of anatomy stands as central concern to the practice of
the Renaissance architecture. This is not exclusively the study of functional
or even surface anatomy, but rather that of the design and proportion from
which most everything else will be assessed and measured. It is my belief that
the Renaissance artist/architect studied the figure primarily for this abstract exercise
which when understood and distilled into a universal language of form, would
then be applied as a compositional logic to that of architecture. I have shown
anthropomorphic examples of large (domes/floor plans) to the smallest
occurrences (doorways/colums), to highlight the point that what mattered most
was the ability to see and think this abstraction and to not project a
standardized plan or method.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Why should we care about construction? Part 4
Section
3 - Case Studies: Anatomy seen through the lens of architectural drafting
Figure 1 – Leonardo da Vinci, Heroic Nudes (anatomy
and static and dynamic equilibrium) and a battle scene, 1503-6, Red chalk and
pen and ink, 16 x 15.3 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Collection Trust
(Image taken from web).
In a
drawing from 1503-6 titled Heroic Nudes
(anatomy and static and dynamic equilibrium) and a battle scene (fig. 1), da
Vinci shows a standing figure and the inside view of a leg with a plumb line
drawn from the front of the pelvis to the toes. In the full figure, a center of
balance is also indicated by showing a vertical plumb line drawn through the
central axis of the hip (roughly over the great trochanter of the femur).
Should the figure move off of this line either forward or backward, it is
assumed that movement would occur. Important here is the idea that da Vinci is
studying dynamics, or thinking the potential of transformative qualities, and
not simply depicting a static position. This analysis of weight gives insight
to da Vinci's interest in anatomy as a tool for critical thinking regarding the
structure, composition, and balance of the figure and its component parts (and
not that of shading/studying only the external/phenomenal qualities). For da
Vinci, the human body is governed by geometric rules branching to all systems
(vessels, lungs, muscles, etc.), all of which have dynamic/animated force. By
thinking more predominantly of the dynamic weight and balance created between
the parts of the figure, we are able to make a cursory comparison to the
analytical thinking required in the critical act of organizing weight in
building, and understanding the problems inherent within.
Figure 2 - Leonardo da Vinci, The human cranium sectioned,
1489, Windsor Castle, Royal Collection Trust
(Image taken from web).
To
push this idea further, in da Vinci's drawing The human cranium sectioned (fig. 2), a three-quarter, top view of a skull is shown with the inside of
the cranium visible. In this study of the skull, we can see da Vinci using
methods of perspective as crucial tools in representing the “cut away” view. Da
Vinci shows the cranial mass sectioned with the outermost quarter removed, exposing
the interior.
Figure 3 - Studies of the Leg, c. 1485-90, Pen and
ink over metalpoint, on pale blue prepared paper, 22.2 x 29.0 cm
, Royal Collection Trust (Image taken from web)
A similar method is used in his Studies of the leg (fig.3),
showing the lateral view of a right leg. Of specific interest in this study is the
sectioned pieces separated to show the varying widths of the leg. One area
(mid-thigh) is then moved to the side to show the thickness of the varied
muscle groups contained within. Notice here the top-down view of the leg, and
the way it resembles an elevation or floor plan. While these first two examples
do not show an exact architectural crossover, they do show a willingness to
treat the figure in the exact same way, using the same tools of representation
(perspective, changing angles, consideration of inside and outside space).
Before
moving to a discussion of the more anthropomorphic examples of anatomy and
architecture, I would like to introduce one more artist essential to the discussion
of visualizing proportions, anatomy, and the architectural design of the figure
during the Renaissance: Albrecht Dürer.
Albrecht
Dürer
Albrecht
Dürer, a German artist working in Northern Europe, was greatly influenced by Leonardo
Da Vinci as well by the writings of Vitruvius. Dürer makes this
connection clear, stating:
As
regards any discussion on building, or of its elements, I believe none among
our eminent capimaestri or artisans
have overlooked how the ancient Roman author Vitruvius wrote so splendidly in
his books regarding the decoration of architecture: his example is a lesson to
us all.[1]
Dürer’s text on the
proportions of the figure was published in 1528. Prior to this, he authored books
on the applications of geometry and a treatise on fortifications. Dürer ‘s motivations
in studying a wide range of body types, genders, and varying shapes and sizes
of individual parts was an attempt to prove that art was founded on a
determinate set of rules. To this point, and still building off the thoughts of
Vitruvius, Dürer states:
That
master of the ancient world Vitruvius, architect of the grandiose building in
Rome, states that he who intends to build should conform to human beauty,
because the body conceals the arcane secrets of proportion. Hence, before
discussing buildings, I intend to explain the form of a well-built man, and
then a woman, a child, and a horse. In this way you will acquire an approximate
measure of all things about you.[2]
The key term in Dürer’s
comment is "well-built man." Following in Vitruvius's footsteps, Dürer regards man as architectural form. While Dürer wasn’t as concerned with
the interior anatomy and dissection as da Vinci, his thinking shows a complete
geometric and projective system for the representation of the human body. Dürer
also provides an incredible range of perspective positions and views.
Figure 4 - Albrecht
Durer, Stereometric Man; thirteen
cross-sections of the body, c. 1523, pen and ink, 11.5 x 8 in., Nuremberg,
Germany, National Museum (image taken from web).
Specifically,
Dürer’s Stereometric man with thirteen
cross-sections of the body (fig. 4) shows a figure built entirely from
planar cubes and or boxes. With the figure holding its weight on the right leg,
a clear contrapposto position is
held. Surrounding the figure within the margins and surrounding space are
thirteen different elevation plans/views of the figure taken from top to
bottom. This ground plan or project of the figure cut at various moments shows
the body as if it were a blueprint with the same technical vocabulary as the
architect.
Figure 5 – Albrecht
Durer, Stereometric man, front view,
profile and ground plan, c. 1519, pen and ink, 11.5 x 8.5 in.
An additional example titled Stereometric
man with front view, profile and ground plan (fig. 5) dissolves the figure
even further in architectural abstraction, leaving it only legible as an abstracted
mannequin. Where da Vinci, in the initial drawings discussed, begins to view
anatomical parts and pieces through the lens of geometric perspective (with a
nod to architectural techniques), Dürer goes beyond to understand the
figure as a pure subject of architecture, presenting the body, in total, as a
geometric assemblage.
In
the above examples, Dürer shows the figure as a series of “ground plan” views
as well as a coordinated set of parallel projections and cross sections,
presenting an interpretation of the figure as something constructed with
mechanical instruments in strict planar terms. In these cases, Dürer’s figures
shrink from having human detail so entirely that they essentially dissolve into
some hybrid form of human structures. While
lacking some of the eloquence in design and realization that da Vinci's
sketches clearly possess, Dürer still provides an example of this shared form
language that is also used by Leonardo da Vinci.
Section
3 – Mental Sculpture: Case studies in the plastic molding of geometries from
the figure to architecture, or instances where abstraction gives way to the
figure blending into architectural motifs.
With
the above in mind, I will end with a few more examples that show a more developed
design at work illustrating the transformative language shared between anatomy and
architecture. In building to this point, my goal has been to establish a
foundation (both in philosophy, process, and practice) for the potential for
anatomy to be seen as synced to that of an architectural tradition. With that
foundation in mind, I will isolate more
anthropomorphic examples that express more clearly this dissolve or blend
between the two.
Figure 6 Leonardo da Vinci
In fig. 6, Leonardo da Vinci shows a dissection of the
skull, neck, and throat paired alongside plans for columns. It appears that in
this image, da Vinci has used the proportions of the hyoid bone, throat, and surrounding
cartilage as a departure point for the columns shown to the right. Should this indeed
be the case, we can examine this as a consideration of the macro idea of
proportion and harmony aimed at a very small/micro design hidden within the
surface contours of the neck. While this image very clearly shows a shared thought
existing between the two, it also alludes to the transformative aspects and
potential mental sculpting which may be taking place, as the mass and
proportion of the throat gradually resolves into the solid cylindrical mass of
the column on the right.
Figure 7 – Leonardo
da Vinci, The muscles of the shoulder and
arm, and the bones of the foot, c.1510-11,
pen and ink with wash, over black chalk, 28.9x20.1 cm, Royal Collection Trust (image
taken from web)
In
the same spirit as above, Anatomical
studies of the shoulder region (fig. 7) shows da Vinci's extremely elegant
and concise anatomical drawings/dissection of the arms, shoulder, as well as
the bones of the foot. My specific interest here is in the top of the arms
pictured in the center of the image showing the external anatomy (deltoid)
removed. Da Vinci here has focused on the intricate structure of tendons and
muscles connecting the rib cage/scapula into the top of the humerus.
Surprisingly, this extremely complicated transition isn’t at all busy or
convoluted in appearance. Rather, a very clear and orderly progression of
rounded triangular and square shapes design a progression of negative shapes
between the connecting muscles.
Figure 8 – Leonardo
da Vinci, Studies for the tiburio of
Milan Cathedra, c. 1487, ink, 28.2x23.7 cm, Codex Atlanticus, Biblioteca
Ambrosiana, folio 851, Milan, Italy.
When
compared to the accompanying sketch Studies
for the tiburio of Milan Cathedral (fig. 8), there appears to be a great
deal of formal similarity. Here da Vinci is studying, or perhaps searching for,
a solution to the tiburio, or crossing tower, of the cathedral at Milan. If flipped,
the previous sketch would match perfectly in shape. The tiburio study shows a
very similar shape and design, and leads one to imagine that the shoulder has
been abstracted into a usable language of form/function.
Fig. 9 Leonardo da
Vinci, Studies for lantern of cathedral,
1478-90, red and sepia ink, The Codex Trivulzianus, folio 22, page 41. (Image
taken from web)
Lastly,
in Studies for lantern of cathedral (fig. 9), da Vinci shows what looks to be a simplified design for a rib cage in the
top right corner of the image. The flat dome or egg shape is shown with a line
down the middle and an opening at the bottom. Looking at this shape with an eye
towards anatomical dissections, we could easily understand this as an exact
diagram for the rib cage - the line down the center being the sternum, and the
opening at the bottom being the thoracic arch (or separation at the tenth rib).
The fascinating aspect to this image is the almost animated way in which this
form moves from the top right, down, and into the bottom left. As this rib cage
shape moves from the top right down, it begins to take on a more dimensional
appearance, becoming more volumetric. It is almost as if we can see da Vinci's
mental sculpting in process, as the mass of the rib cage slowly transforms into
the top of the Milan cathedral. The volumes shown moving down from the top
right (second and third drawing shown from beneath) appear to have a consistent
geometric volume to that of the rib cage. As it moves further, what once
appears to have been a rib cage, takes place at the top of a centrally planned
cathedral as its dome. Around the margins of this drawing are variations of
this shape showing potential iterations as options. If this is in fact an
accurate description of what is happening within da Vinci's sketch, then we are
able to see a completely fluid practice of anatomy becoming architecture
or vice versa. While this will end my survey of da Vinci's work and thought, I will continue in the next (and last post) with two examples from Michelangelo. While my intention has
not been to relate all of the above ideas directly to da Vinci alone, he does
stand as an exemplary example of this practice, creating a clear model through
which a number of artists might be more easily studied.
Monday, August 24, 2015
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Why should we care about construction? Part 3
Evolving a Form Language: Da Vinci, from the Vitruvian man to Dissections.
Using
the above (first two entries) as a spring board or foundation to understand practices in
Renaissance architecture, I'll now turn to specific instances where figures show this dissolve from anatomical study into abstraction/concept,
and architectural plan. Following this line of inquiry, it would be difficult to discuss
Renaissance art without focusing on the practice of Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo's
anatomical studies were at the forefront of the evolution of anatomical
thinking in the 15th and 16th centuries. He was
associated with the anatomist Marcantonio della Torre, and had planned to write
a book on the subject of human anatomy.[1] While the practice of human dissection was
closely controlled by ecclesiastical and civil rules (though not actually
prohibited), dissections of criminals was sometimes possible. Through his
dissections, Leonardo made important discoveries; the frontal sinus of the
cranium, and the four cavities of the heart and its muscular nature were but a
few among them. Da Vinci’s studies weren’t only devoted to that of humans --
his study of anatomy and proportions also extended to the animal realm. With Da Vinci, the study of anatomy became something very different than it had been
earlier in the Renaissance. Where anatomy had once been the study of skeletal
and muscle structure to facilitate the accurate representation of the nude
figure, da Vinci's studies of anatomy intertwined with his ideas on physiognomy
(or underlying essence/force to a figure and or expression), as well as his
broader ideas on art. In other words, da Vinci's studies show a critical
involvement and analysis beyond a mere passive recording of the effects of exterior surfaces. On almost all of Leonardo’s figurative break downs and
studies are a series of geometric diagrams. On one such anatomical drawing,
Leonardo has gone so far as to write “let no one who is not a mathematician
read my principles.”[2] With this point of consistency from our discussion Vitruvius to Alberti, the
question remains how this thinking of geometry blended figurative and
architectural principles into one and the same practice.
While
da Vinci's anatomical studies might be seen in light of his activities as a
painter, there is still a strong focus on the mathematical interpretation of
the figure’s design and formula (this might be most clearly seen in his use of
“cross-sections,” which will be discussed shortly). Further, Leonardo stands as
an ideal case study, as it is known that he was working simultaneously on
sectional perspectives and anatomical dissections (1487-89), while also actively
involved with the dome of the Milan Cathedral (and ideal churches, 1487-88), as
well as the Vitruvian man (1490). In what follows, I will address Leonardo’s Vitruvian man,
anatomical cross sections, and architectural studies, highlighting the
simultaneity of these practices in order to propose a mode of thought in line
with the above inquiry, specifically a mathematical and geometric
interpretation of the body and its translation into a process facilitating
architectural design.
Fig. 1 Leonardo da Vinci, Man inscribed in a square
and a circle (the ‘Vitruvian Man’), 1490, pen and ink with wash over metal
point on paper, 34.4 x 25.5 cm, Venice, Galleria dell’Accademia (image taken
from web).
Leonardo
da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man (fig.1) shows
the anterior view of a man surrounded by, as well as connecting, a square and
circle. This is as Vitruvius described, when he stated, “also a square will be found
described within a figure, in the same way a round figure is produced.”[3] In this drawing, we see two of the most
important shapes used in Renaissance architecture and its re-birth of a
mathematically inspired interpretation of the world. The circle and the square,
and/or a composite of both, stand as the keystones to design in Renaissance architecture.
In da Vinci's drawing, we see an emphasis on the contiguity of the human body
with geometry, in an effort to demonstrate a divine harmony between the macro-
and microcosms. Speaking to the symbolic value of these shapes for the
Renaissance, John Hendrix states:
If
the square is taken as the traditional symbol of the earth and the circle is
taken as the traditional symbol of the divine, then the drawing represents the
ability of man to connect the celestial and the material, by being able to
ascend to the one and descend to the other in his soul.[4]
Using his Vitruvian Man, da
Vinci illustrates a form language that describes essential geometries
incorporated in abstracting from nature, or specifically in this case, the figure.
Further, the square and the circle (and geometry as a whole) directly relate to
da Vinci's ongoing interest in a “transformation” – “or the plastic moulding of
one shape into another without change of area or volume.”[5] For da Vinci, the
Vitruvian Man stands at the center of an aesthetic preoccupation, or an obsession
with squaring the circle.[6] This is in addition to
seeing the transformative qualities between the two (as in the opening and
closing of the heart as it contracts). To this point, Martin Kemp suggests that
Leonardo’s relationship to volume and form was one of an objective sculpture
realized from principles of harmony and proportion outlined in Vitruvius. Kemp
states
…
whenever he manipulated geometrical shapes or forms, they always assumed a concrete
and real existence in his mind and in his hands, as a form of mental sculpture.[7]
What we can take from this is the idea that
form was not a random occurrence, but rather the outcome of a very deliberate
and strict logic. It might also be said, especially in the case of da Vinci,
that his form language made possible a mental sculpture, through which
geometries created the potential for the realization and depiction of multiple
subjects. As such, this language is one not directed at a recording of the
figure, but rather an elevated awareness of the geometric volumes and their
role in developing a higher unity. Oswald Mathia Ungers has noted this
principle in his discussion of “The Criteria of Architecture,” stating “the
essential geometrical figures remained the circle and the square, as
representations and synonyms for the cosmos. Just as the human body was a
clearly defined organism, with heads and limbs, so were buildings.”[8] Armed with a language of form
and a syntax for how those forms should be proportioned, da Vinci was
designing a visual rule consistent with an ideal that could be carried over again
and again into other any design. To return to Unger,
Form was not a random
occurrence but the outcome of applied logic, and hence comparable with the
result of applying proportional relationships. Seen in this light, architecture
was a question of giving order to matter, physical data, and reality through
the application of reason …matter was subjected to the rigors of form. Such a
logic excluded any concept of an ideal of matter or functionality. Architecture
was comparable to a science that had lost sight of the absolute, the Platonic
concept of reality, truth, and beauty.”[9]
If the Vitruvian Man
qualifies as a visual manifestation of an aesthetic program, it follows that we
can also see these ideas in da Vinci's cross-sections and anatomical breakdowns.
From a modern understanding, anatomy is the structure of the parts of the body
revealed by its dissection. That is, the structure of the body, its parts and
the whole, is revealed by the art of “cutting” the body. In a very practical
way, we may consider the drawings made by da Vinci as studies revealing the
interior structure of the of the body in an effort to rationalize the shape and
form of the exterior. To go one step further, we can say that da Vinci was studying
the beauty/unity that existed among the chorus of smaller parts. These smaller
parts would be studied for their design and proportion, and aligned with a
series of geometric equivalents. Further, if we agree with the notion that
buildings are indeed a form of a body (from the largest proportions and
structure down to the smallest detail and ornament), we should expect to see
the body being shown in architectural terms or architecture realized as the
result of exploration of human anatomy. My final examples which will follow will strive to point
out the shared technical language between anatomy and architecture. For this, I
will continue to look at Leonardo da Vinci, and the not yet discussed Albrecht Dürer.
In the following section, I will focus more on examples of mental sculpture
and/or transformative examples of figure becoming architecture.
[1] Domenico
Laurenza, Art and Anatomy in the
Renaissance: Images from a Scientific Revolution, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2012), 13.
[2]
Martin Kemp, Leonardo Da Vinci:
Experience, Experiment and Design, (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2006), 12.
[3]
Vitruvius, 72.
[4]
John Hendrix, “The Neoplatonic Aesthetics of Leon Battista Alberti,” in Neo-Platonic Aesthetics: Music Literature,
& the Visual Arts, eds. Liana De Girolami Cheney and John Hendrix ( New
York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2004), 163.
[5]
Kemp, 14.
[6]
Ibid., 14.
[7]
Ibid., 14.
[8]
Ungers, 315
[9]
Ibid., 316.
Friday, August 14, 2015
Why should we care about construction? Part 2
Virtruvius
and his influence
Vitruvius’
Ten Books on Architecture had a
profound influence on architectural and artistic practice in the Renaissance.
Further, within his discussion of the practice of architecture, there are many
instances where the human figure becomes the underlying template for design.
Writing on the design of columns, Vitruvius stated:
When
they discovered that for a man, the foot is one-sixth his height, they applied
this ratio to the column, and whatever diameter they selected for the base of
the column shaft, they carried its shaft, including the capital, to a height
six times that amount. Thus the Doric column came to exhibit the proportion,
soundness, and attractiveness of the male body.[1]
In Vitruvius, we see
something very different from a literal translation of the look of the figure
and/or its outwardly appearance as applied to a temple. Rather, underlying
proportional principles are used as the basis for linking two radically unlike
things. Vitruvius goes one step further in identifying each type of column
(Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian) as specifically manifesting different bodies (male,
female, and girl). This isn’t to say that the columns take on representational
attributes of either, but rather the proportional schema shifts in each,
projecting an ideal connected with those types. The columns, in essence, become
idealized forms distilled from an abstract essential specific to each figure or
body type.
As a side note, we might think of Plato’s thoughts as foundational
to the way Vitruvius’s columns align the viewer with a rational order via the
abstraction of figurative properties into the simple geometric language of the
column. While Vitruvius’s thoughts on the column orders give a very direct
picture of the relationship between the human body and building, his thoughts
on proportion are still more encompassing. To this point, Vitruvius stated that
proportion
consists
in taking a fixed module, in each case, both for the parts of building and for
the whole, by which the method of symmetry is put into practice. For without
symmetry and proportion no temple can have a regular plan; that is it must have
an exact proportion worked out after the fashion of the human body.[2]
Thus, all proportion is
derived from the human body. Further, this system of proportion is achieved the
same way as in architecture, through the organization and assessments of units
realized under a larger plan. For Vitruvius, and the Renaissance artists that
follow, it is not just the large design of the figure which organizes a floor or
elevation view of a building, but also the design of smaller parts and how they
speak in concert to the whole. With a consistent line from Plato to Vitruvius
showing an emphasis on mind and the rational ordering of proportion, we can now
look to Alberti, one of the first Renaissance architects to practice/theorize
this.
Alberti
In
his study and translation of Vitruvius’s work, Alberti (the first to translate
Vitruvius, making his thoughts available to other Renaissance artists capable of reading latin) takes
much from his thinking, allowing it to influence his ideas of beauty, design,
and proportions. While not always in complete agreement with Vitruvius, Alberti
does share a strong connection expressed in his thinking of concinnitas. Alberti defines this idea
as “a harmony of all the parts … fitted together with such proportion and
connection that nothing could be added, diminished, or altered for the worse.”[3] This idea comes to stand
as paramount to Alberti as a way of composing form and proportion consistent
with antiquity. While beauty is a concept intimately paired with reason, it is
also developed and abstracted from existing principles observed in nature.
Regarding the body more directly, Alberti states:
Beauty is a form of sympathy
and consonance of parts within a body, according to a definite number, outline
and position, as dictated by a concinnitas,
the absolute and fundamental rule of nature.[4]
Here, Alberti points to a
universal principle in his statement on beauty consistent with the concerns of
Vitruvius and Plato. According to this governing rule, proportions are
translated into geometric forms, which are then translated to human qualities,
and these human qualities are then taken into that of architecture. It is this
idea of concinnitas, as Alberti’s
governing ideal, which allows for this practice to function as something common
to all subjects depicted. Specifically important here is that Alberti is
consistently drawing on and creating through the formal language of this
aesthetic outlook. While he may be observing a body, façade, archway, etc.,
what matters is that they are all speaking to a larger ideal from which his
artistic practice may be thought to originate from.
The
thread of Platonic thought that runs from Vitruvius to Alberti appears
throughout artistic thinking in Renaissance works in some form or another. With
an emphasis on geometry, harmony, and proportion, beauty becomes a quality not
found in the material of artworks, but rather in the conceptual plan the artist
brings to it. The idea or ideal of beauty is pre-existent in the mind of the
artist and thus something applied across subject matter and practices. In
essence, from Platonic thinking via Vitruvius to Alberti, a form language is
synthesized between the natural world and man’s rational capabilities in
pointing to the Divine. This form language permeates Renaissance architecture,
and as I will hope to show in the next entry, is also active in anatomical dissections as
well as abstractions of the human figure.
[1]
Vitruvius
Pollio, Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture,
trans. Ingrid D. Rowland (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 55.
[2]
Ibid.,72.
[3] Leon
Battista Alberti, On the Art of Building
in Ten Books, trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988), 422.
[4] Ibid.,
422.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)