|
The act of grouping in architecture must be as old as the profession itself. Even Vitruvius utilized a cateqorical approach to his discussion of buildings. He classified architecture first according to its realm - either private or public, and further divided these general categories into classes of building uses - individual houses, temples, fora, promenades, or baths. There was further specification with respect to style, composition, or geometry. Ultimately Vitruvius described single structures by enumerating their column spacings, proportions, and even dimensions. The word type is not part of the Ten Books on Architecture, but in his move from general building classes to specific building entities Vitruvius seemed to have created a catalog. of types. He identified obvious similarities between different architectural objects and used them as a basis for the establishment of groups. Moreover, single artifacts were allowed to stand as representative examples of the properties of their groups. For Vitruvius these properties were easily identifiable and concretely describable. There were no systyle temples which did not exhibit an inter-columniation exactly twice the column diameter. The group and the single example were inseparably bound together by the property that defined the group. It is tempting therefore to refer to Vitruvius' various categories as building types, and even grammatically acceptable within the limits imposed by a modern dictionary definition. But are the Vitruvian categories of distinction - specific physical properties - really sufficient in themselves to characterize an architectural type? If
this question was never broached directly by the Renaissance masters who revived
the Vitruvian tradition, its consideration was certainly implicit in their work,
and especially evident in the villas of Palladio. Although variety and new things may please everyone yet they ought not to be done contrary to the, precepts of art and contrary to that which reason dictates ; whence one sees, that although the ancients did vary, yet they never departed from some universal and necessary rules ….[3]
For the planning of his villas, Palladio respected certain rules from which he never departed.
There was always a hall in the center, and an absolute symmetry of the lesser rooms about this
hall, describing a basic geometric pattern which is a distinguishing mark
of all Palladian villas and palaces. In one sense it is this basic geometry - a
pattern of arrangement- which is the Palladian villa type. Rudolph
Wittkower, however, makes a convincing case for Palladio's use of geometry in
all his architecture as an embodiment of a higher conceit, having to do with the
expression of a perceived cosmic order. Any architectural entity
was merely a particularized version of such an order.[4]
Thus it was not the geometry per se
which characterized the villa. It was something once removed from it. For
Palladio, there was a persistent, more general presence that was able to
consistently inform the creation of a variety of specific geometric patterns
that were all basically the same, yet all uniquely different. This presence may
also be called the Palladian villa type. His
facades illustrate clearly that in the design of his villas Palladio was
operating at a higher level than simple variation on a pattern of arrangement.
Several of the villa facades are subtle crossbreeds of compositional devices
theretofore associated exclusively with either the temple or the villa. However,
Wittkower argues for Palladio's conception of the temple as a magnified house,[5]
and such a conception was
possible because of Palladio's profound understanding of 'what was a villa in
general.' This genius enabled him almost vicariously
to manipulate the fabric of his architecture while still allowing a more
essential 'villaness' to shine through. It is this more essential something
which constitutes the true architectural type. To accept this general motion of type -
as a sort of metaphysical glue that binds together the various crystallizations
of an ideal - is to accept a certain amount of vagueness in any definition of
what a type really is. The clearest
statement of what constitutes a Palladian villa type is the Palladian villa.
Its crystallizations are the most complete descriptions available of what
constitutes the ideal. Is type then
an a priori notion? If it exists as an idea before any examples of it can come
into being, how complete an understanding of it can be gained a posteriori? Can the general notion of a type be abstracted from its
specific examples? |
 |
| Systyle Temple Plan - From The Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius |
 |
| Villa Badoero at La Frata by Palladio - From The Four Books of Architecture |