-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
1/21
http://www.jstor.org
Architectural Representation beyond Perspectivism
Author(s): Alberto Prez-Gmez and Louise Pelletier
Source: Perspecta, Vol. 27, (1992), pp. 21-39
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567174
Accessed: 17/07/2008 15:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of
JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's
Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an
entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and
you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal,
non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this
work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the
same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build
trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials
they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more
information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567174?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1567174?origin=JSTOR-pdf
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
2/21
Architectural Representat ion Beyond Perspect ivismAlberto Pe
rez- Gdmez and Louise Pelletier
We use "meaning" in a sense derivedfrom the phenomenology of
EdmundHusserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty.In this sense, meanin g is
a given in theprereflective engagement of man (withhis body) in the
world. There is noquestion here of mea ning as the effectof
association. Hum an meaningremains, primordially, a mystery
where-by we recognize an order in the speci-ficity of the perc
eption. It is the object-ified, enfiamed perception of objectsthat
makes it so difficult for us tounderstand that this perception
withmeaning is indeed the very go un d ofour thoughts and
actions.
From a phe nom enolog ical perspec-tive a "symbol" is not a
contriv ance orinventio n. Symbols are of course histori-cally
determ ined bu t possess a transhis-torical dimensio n, as we today
haveaccess to the meanings of the past. Thesymbol is also not
necessarily a repre-sentation of absolute truths or transcen-dental
theological values. It affords usa glimpse of our transhistorical
embod-ied reality (never fixed or reducible to aformulation such as
the transparentBeing of Western metaphysics) and thusmakes it
possible for us to en dure inthe world despite our ~ers on
almortali-ty. It is our position that such under-standin g of symb
olization as a realityimmanent in the world of man survivesboth the
critique of philosophicalnihilism and relativism, and as a goal
ofarchitectu ral design overcomes theesthetic formalism that is
usually theresult of this view in th e self-referentialproducts of
postmodern architecture.
Com puter -aided design an d technical drawing have become p art
of the everyday lifeof the architect . Wh ile their un disputed
precision has ma de the architect's task intosom ethin g akin to
applied science, and their efficiency is now deem ed to be a
proofof quality, the pr oble m o f architectural representation
still begs discussion. Tools ofrepresentation underlie the conc
eptual elaboration o f a project an d the whole processof the
generation of form. Even tho ugh most enligh tened architects would
recognizethe l im itations of tools of projection such as plans,
sections, and elevations an dpredictive planning in relation to the
actual mea ning of their buil t work, ' no alterna-tives are
seriously considered outside the do main of mo dern perspectivism,
whichhas deeply conditioned ou r knowledge and perception.T he
functional motivations of a technological world have helped to
transfo rm per-spectival tools into pragmatic projections that are
unable to translate into the realmof representation the symbolic
order o f the world.z Today, the process of creation inarchitecture
often consists of a formalist ic approach tha t assumes that th e
design orrepresentation of a building d ema nds a set of
projections. These projections aremea nt to act as the repository
of a complete idea of a building, a city, or a technolog-ical
object . For purposes of descriptive docu men tation , depiction,
constru ction, orany im parting of objective inform ation, the
architectural profession has generallyidentified architectural
drawings as projections. These reductive representations relyon
syntactic connections between images, with each piece only a part
of a dissectedwhole. Representations in professional practice,
then, are easily reduced to the statusof efficient neutral
instruments devoid of inherent value. Devices such as
drawings,prints, models, p hotographs, and com puter graphics are
perceived as a necessary sur-rogate of the buil t work. I t is
therefore crucial to see the implications of such areductive att i
tude o n th e creative process in architecture.Th is descriptive
set of projections th at we toda y take for granted is in fact our
inheri-tance from the geometrized, homog eneous space of the
nineteenth century. O u rimplicit trust i n the application of a
scientific methodology to architecture derivesdirectly from the
techniques prescribed by Jacques Nicolas Louis Du ran d in
hisPrPcis des Lecons dlArch itecture (1802 and 1813).3 Durand's
legacy is the objectificationof style an d tech nique, an d th e
establishment of app arently irreconcilable alterna-tives:
technological construction (functional) versus artistic
architecture (formal), thefalse dichotomy of necessary s t ruc ture
and contingent ornament .
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
3/21
z ae West alvador DaO c 1934.
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
4/21
J N L Durand gave us the firstarchitectural theory whose values
weredirectly extrapolated from the aims ofapplied science and
technology. Neverbefore Durand had the concern formeaning been
subordinated to the pur-suit of efficiency and economy in
theproduction of design. For the purpose ofthis article it is
particularly crucial tokeep in mind the connection betweenthis
system of values and its tools, i.e.,Durand s MPcanisme t l
Composition,the first design methodology thoroughlydependent on the
predictive quality ofthe projections of descriptive geometry.
This statement recognizes the politi-cal and public aspect of
architecturalmeaning. The technological vision, theenframed vision,
is our vision. The firststep for the architect interested
inretrieving an ethical praxis is to acceptthe necessity of
self-transformation, of arecollection of being through
ourembodiment. The terms embodimentand embodied reality are used in
theirphenomenological sense. Embodimentrefers specifically to a
nondualistic, post-Cartesian understanding of conscious-ness where
mind and body are not in afunctional, mechanistic relation, and
theboundaries between the external andinternal worlds of experience
vanish.
short list of philosophers followingthis path could start with
FriedrichNietzsche and include E. Husserl,Martin Heidegger, Jose
Ortega y Gasset,and, more recently, George Gusdorf,David M. Levin,
and Hans Blumenberg.The implications of myth are obviouslycomplex
and often contradictory in thework of these writers. We don t use
mythas a false story aimed at perpetuatingthe abhorrent
exploitative political struc-tures of our history. Myth cannot
simplybe added to form to make some kindof meaningful architecture.
Our conten-tion with Blumenberg is that myth isultimately
unavoidable in humanculture and that it is our only means
ofarticulating a truth grounded in ourmortality and rationality.
Even contem-porary scientists now realize that narra-tives are
crucial to the substantiation ofspecific theories; that the
greatest precisionleads to uncertainty. This
mythopoeticarticulation must be the point of departureof our
fictive and historical narratives aswe try to develop an ethical
praxis. This isindeed the basis of a theory of architecturethat is
not a methodology.
Though the formalization of descriptive geometry promoted a
particularly s~mplisticobjectification, the projective tool is a
product of our technological world grounded in amodern world-view
that we cannot simply reject. But a different use of
abstraction,related to modern art, has been generated from the same
historical situation. Its inten-tion, the model of which, as we
will show, is closer to a film montage, is t o
transcendperspective, to transcend dehumanizing technological
values (often concealed in aworld that we think we control) through
the incorporation of a critical position aboutthe contemporary
situation tha t might allow a new creative process t o emerge.The
objectifying vision of technology denies the possibility of
realizing in one drawingor artifact a symbolic intention tha t
might eventually be present in the built work. Thefact is that the
process of making the building endows it with a dimension that
cannot be reproduced through the picture or image of the built
work. Reciprocally, archi-tectural representations must be regarded
as having the potential to embody fully anintended order, like any
other work of am4Today we recognize serious problems with our
postindustrial cities and our scientisticway of conceiving and
planning buildings. Man y philosophers and cultural historianshave
described the crisis of modern science and emphasized the necessity
of transcend-ing reductionist thinking i n all disciplines of human
endeavor. They have acceptedthe ultimate need for a mythopoetic
dimension of discourse, a narrative that involves anaccounting of
the existential anxiety that is the transhistorical nature of our
mortalhuman life.5 similar intention must be incorporated into
architecture. It is imperativethat we not take for granted certain
assumptions about architectural ideation, and tha twe redefine our
tools in order to generate meaningful form. Our professional
res-ponsibility demands our concern for the making of a world that
is not merely a com-fortable or pragmatic shelter, but that offers
the inhabitant a physical, formal orderthat reflects the depth of
our human condition. In this essay we will explore theconception of
building as a poetic translation rather than as a prosaic
transcription ofits representatiom6
__ 1
Port D Ostie, JN.L. Dumnd 1800.
Architectural Rebrrscntation Bevond Pers~ectiuism
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
5/21
6 Addressing the problem of language,Heidegger recognized that
the representa-tive hnction of (scientific) prose hasbeen
exhausted. To transcend the resultingsilence we must recognize the
primacyof poetic speech, a saying that revealswhile concealing;
aktheia, a dtferent say-ing of the truth.7 See Alberto Perez-Goma,
Architecturnand the Crisis of Mo drm Science(Cambridge: M TPress,
1983), introductionand ch. 9, and Abstraction in
ModernArchitecturen n W 9 (Philadelphia, 1988).8 Paul Ricoeur
thoroughly develops thecomplex notion of the world of the workin
several works, particularly History andTmth (Evanston, Illinois:
NorthwesternUniversity Press, 1965) and The Confictof Intqretation
s (Evanston, Illinois:Northwestern University Press, 1974).
9 Gothic architecture in particular was aquestion of
construction, operatingthrough well-established traditions
andgeometrical rules that would be directlyapplied on the site.
Their expression wasthe result of changing labor and diversemethods
supplied by itinerant bands ofstonemasons who migrated with
weatherpatterns to work on various buildingprojects around Europe.
The multiplicityof styles, such as in the cathedral ofChartres, was
not perceived as an inconsis-tency but as a layering of varied
solutionsby different hands for a number of specificstructural
problems over the course oftime. The famous discussion around
theideas and building of the Milan cathedralconstitutes an
excellent example of thecomplex process of building ideation inthe
Middle Ages.1 See Filarete's Trattato (reprint, Milano:I1 Polifilo,
1972)~n which he discusses inthe form of a symposium the
constructionof the city of Sforzinda.
11 The medieval treatises on perspective,from Ibn Alhazen and
Alkindi to Bacon,and Peckham to Vitello and Grossatesta,examine,
principally, the physicaland physiological phenomenon of vision.In
the cultural context of the MiddleAges its application was
specifically relatedto mathematics.
There is an intimate relationship between architectural meaning
and the modusoperandi of the architect, th e nature of his techne.'
We must learn to recognize the dif-ferences among the
representational artifacts in o ur architectural history. Sincethe
Renaissance, t he relationship between the intentions of
architectural drawings andthe built objects that they describe or
depict has changed. Though subtle, thesedifferences are nonetheless
crucial. They can only be perceived if the objects are under-stood
hermeneutically, in the world of the works, i.e., in the context of
theirrespective cultural worlds and particularly the conceptions of
space and time on whichthey are grounded.'O n examining the most
important architectural treatises in their respective contexts,
wehave concluded tha t the systematization that we take for granted
in architectural draw-ing was once less dom inan t in the process
of maturation from the architectural idea tothe actual built work.
Prior to the Renaissance, architectural drawings were rare. In
theMiddle Ages architects did n ot conceive of a whole building
idea, and the very notionof a scale was unknown.' Filarete,
discussing in his treatise the four steps to be followedin
architectural creation, was careful to emphasize that in each
translation from propor-tions to lines, to models, and to
buildings, the problem is autonomous, and that theconnection
between the different steps is analogous to an alchemical
transmutation, notto a mathematical transformation.I0 Architectural
drawings could not therefore be con-ceived as instrumental
artifacts that mig ht be unambiguously translated into
buildings.Dur ing the Renaissance, architecture came to be
understood as a liberal art, and archi-tectural ideas were thereby
increasingly conceived as geometrical lineamenti, asbidimensional,
orthogonal projections. gradual and complex transition from the
clas-sical theory of vision to a new mathematical and geometrical
rationalization of theimage was taking place. But the new
understanding of a perspectival image remaineddirectly related to
the no tion of classical optics as a science of the transmission of
lightrays. T he pyramid of vision, the no tion on which the
Renaissance idea of the image as awindow on the world was based,
was inherited from the euclidean notion of the visual
3 Detail offi ntis piece to the 1572 kztinedition of Opticae
Thesaurus byIbn-al-Haitham Ahaze n 96~-1039).
Alberto PCm-Gdmn and Louise Pelletier
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
6/21
12 Albertib central point (punto centrico)of the perspective
construction is oftenwrongly associated with the vanishingpoin t
projected at infinity. In fact thepoint of convergence in the
construzionekgittima is determined an d fixed by thepoin t of sight
as a counter-eye on thesurface of the window.13 'T his is obviously
a complex issue. Th epainter's interest in mathematical depth,in a
m easurable order of experiencethrough layers of events, had as a
corollarythe use of architectu ral backdrops as theideal means to
express this concern. Itwould be naive to deny the
often-statedconnection between Renaissance paintingsand the wo rk
of architects. However, as wewill contend here, the use of pen pec
t imarti cialis is particularly the province ofpainters. These
complexities are the sourceof many simplistic misinterpretations
oflinear perspective as the origin o f architec-tural ideation in
the fifteenth-century.The construzione lcgtm'ma as developed
byBrunelleschi and Alberti for th e art ofpainting was associated
with arc hitecturalconstruction because the subject of
repre-sentation had to be architectural for theperspective depth to
appear.4 Alberti had also emphasized the differ-
ence between drawings of the painter andthose of the architect.
In De Re Aedijcato-ria or mBooks, Book z h. I Albertipointed out,
in the context of the usehl-ness of rough, undecorated models
indesign, that the architect and the painterboth revealed depth
(prominentids/rilievr)in very different ways. While the
paintertakes pains to emphasize th e relief of
objects in paintings with shading anddiminishin g lines and
angles (indeed,through the methods of linear perspectivethat he
discussed in D e b Picturn), thearchitect recognizes depth
(rafiigurn irilieuz) by means of drawing the plan(mediante il
disegno della pai nta hfirn du-menti descriptioni)and represents in
otherdrawings the shape and dimensions ofeach elevation without
altering the linesand maintaining the true angles. Thearchitect
draws as one who desires hiswork to be judged not by the
apparentperspectiv en (James Leoni's translat ion,London : Alec
Tiranti, 1965), or deceptiveappearancesn Uoseph Rykwert, Lond
on:MIT Press, 1988), but valued exactly onthe basis of controllable
measures (ourtranslation). In attem pting to grasp thedifficulties
involved in th e argum ent,
4 Perpectr'ue machine with an illustrationof binocular vision
reduced to a sin gkpo int,J B. ah Vignola,1743cone. T he eye was
believed to project i ts visual rays ont o the object , with
perceptionoccurr ing as a dynam ic act ion of the beholder up on
the world . Renaissance perceptionremained primari ly tac t ile . T
he hypothesis of a vanishing point was bo th unnecessaryfor th e
construction of perspective , an d u lt imately inconceivable as th
e real i ty o f percep-tion in everyday life. ' 'Even though f if
teenth-century pain ters were experimenting with metho ds of l
inear per-spective , the geom etr izat ion of p ictorial d epth was
n ot yet systematized and d id no timmediate ly inf luence the
experience of th e world o r th e process o f architectural cre-a
tion .13 I t was impossib le for the Renaissance architect to
conceive that the t ru th of th eworld cou ld be reduced to i ts v
isual representa t ion , a two-dimensional d iaphanoussection o f
the py ramid o f vis ion . Brunelleschi , to w ho m w e at tr ibute
the earl ies t exarn-ple of linear perspective, worked most ly from
m odels in his architectural practice.I4Thi s transi t ion between
perspcctivus nacuralis a n d per s pcc t im ar t@al i s consti tu
ted af irs t s tep toward a greater ra tionalizat ion o f the v
isual image and the detac hmen t frommedieval t radition . Natural
perspective had f irs t been in troduced in to the quadriv iumof sc
iences together with music w ithou t even referr ing to the ar t of
drawing. Sain tTh om as Aquinas associa ted perspective with m usic
, considering i t as a v isual harmony,no t a graph ic
method.15
it is interesting to compare the twoEnglish translations of the
text with theItalian translation by Giovanni Orlandi(Milan: I1
Polifilo, 1966) and the Latin
Architectu ral Representation Beyond Perspectiuism
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
7/21
original. The translation of prominentia asprojection from the
ground plan by
Rykwertl Leach1 Tavernor is particu larlyproblematic.5 Robert
Klein elaborates upon the
problem of transition between penpectivucnatumlis and penp
ettivu s artij5cialisin hisarticle Pomponius Gauricus
onPerspective, Art Buhtin 43,1961, 211-13.Klein draws opposite
conclusion s withregard to the co nstructive quality ofRenaissance
perspective, emphasiz ing thecomm on rea ding of perspective as the
ori-gin of architectural ideation to w hich wehave referred.16 The
best examples of this mathemati-cal treatment of perspective are to
befound in Egnazio Danti's commentary onJacopo Barozzi da Vignola's
Due Regolr
/la hp et t i va P ra tt ica (Rome, I&$,and Guidobaldo del
Monte's MontisPenpectivae libri sex (Pesaro, 1600).17 Th e distance
point that determinedthe foresho rtening was projected on thesame
picture plane on the horizon line ata distance from the central
point equal tothe distance between the eye of theobserver and the
plane of the image. Inother words, Vignola's method introduceda
second observer at the same distancefrom the central point who
looked per-pendicularly at the beholder, therebyadding an element
essential tbr the repre-sentation of stereoscopic vision. Prior
tothis, with the apex of the cone of vision sa simplified eye,
perspective had beenmonocular.18 Diirer's machine is a
wonderhlmetaph or for the objectification of realitythat is brought
about by scientific mental-ity. Philosophically, this coincides w
iththe inception of what Heidegger calls theage of the world
picture, the substitutionof presence (or openness to a
transcenden-tal Being) with a represented reality thatnecessarily
conceals its ground o f truth ,i.e., the horizo n of the object,
excluded bythe h e .
In treatises on perspective as the art of drawing, starting with
Alberti's Della Picturabinocular vision was reduced to a fixed
point that was the apex of the cone of vision.The necessity of
stereoscopic vision to perceive depth, however, required the
introduc-tion of a second element that would determine the
foreshortening. In Alberti's methodof perspective, this new element
became an abstract screen (known today as thepicture plane)
intersecting the visual rays at a given distance. Foreshortening,
however,remained the result of intuition. There was no
systematization in fifteenth-centuryperspective treatises.During
the sixteenth century, treatises on perspective tried to translate
the primarilyempirical understanding of this phenomenon into a
system, and became increasinglydistanced from treatises on optics.
These, however, remained theoretical or mathemati-cal elucidations
and had almost no practical use in perspectival representation.I6
InVignola's Due Regoh defh Prospettiva Prattica a second observer
was introduced andbecame the distance point. To create a
perspective, the artists of the Renaissanceabstracted themselves
from the experienced world; the geometrization of depth in
paint-ing was a sign of an increasing rationalization of perception
in general. Albrecht Diirer'sperspectival apparatus, composed of an
eyepiece and a glass panel, established a rigidmethod by which to
copy nature. The image as a bidimensional section of the cone
ofvision was thus made literal.''
J Perspective machine Albrccht Durn 15x4Sketch of the head in
pmpec tive
Albrecht Durn 1~x4
Afberto Ph z- G dm n and Louise Peffetier
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
8/21
Even though the drawings by Diirer and Philibert de I'Orme may
be seen as the originof the reductionism of computer graphics, just
as these artists' interest in projectionsmarks the origin of our
own belief that reality can be represented via geometrical
per-spective (and, later, through journalistic photography), it
would be wrong to imaginethat perspective always existed, either as
a pictorial representation or as the assumedtrut of real space.
Renaissance drawings are not simply the same as modern drawings
intheir relationship to the built place. Plans and elevations were
not yet systematicallycoordinated within the framework of
descriptive geometry. These drawings were notinstrumental and
remained much more autonomous from the building than those
thatresult from typical contemporary practice.Before Diirer, a plan
was generally conceived as a composite footprint of a building,and
an elevation as a face. Vertical or horizontal sections were not
commonly used
The head conshucted y means of thtransfer method Albrecbt Diim
1528
Architectural Representation Beyond Perqectivisrn
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
9/21
19 Michelangelo's entire emphasis wasupon life and movement,
qualities thatwere most often excluded from architec-tural theory
in the Renaissance. Architects
before the s ix teenth century , just as anato my rare ly
involved the actual d issection ofcadavers unti l the early mod ern
era . In t he s ix teenth century Michelangelo unde rstoodthe l iv
ing hum an b ody as the fou ndation o f a ll ar t , and cr i tic
ized Diirer 's a t te mpt t o ixa s t a ti c im a g e o f t h e h u
m a n b o d Y 1 V n o n tr a st t o a g r ow i n g n u m b er o f h
is c o n t e m p o-raries , Michelangelo was res is tant to the
possib il i ty of making architecture through pro-ject ions, as he
cou ld only conceive of the hum an bo dy in motion. 'O H e could s
t il l ,nonetheless , perceive a s imple sketch as th e symbo l of
a wh ole architectural in tention ,the seed of the whole work. ''
Michelangelo's architectural work, perhaps the m ost out-s tanding
of h is century , is remarkably original , founded o n an em bodied
approach tothe task of build ing and re ject ing project ions a nd
lineamenti. Th a t we a te to d ay d eep lyinspired by Michelangelo
's arch itecture may be precise ly because h is wo rk is based o na
nonperspectival app roach t o designin g places.
were increasingly concerned with the clar-ity and fixity of
measure and proportion s.Th is is M ichelangelo's criticism of
Durer'sFour Books on Human Proportions(Nu rem berg , 1528): ...[he]
treat s only ofthe measure and kind of bodies, to whicha certain
rule cannot be given, formingthe figures as stiff as stakes; and
what mat-ters more, he says not one word concern-ing human acts and
gestures. (FromCondivi's Lifr ofMichelangelo,quoted byDavid
Summers, Michelangelo and theLanguage ofArt, Princeton
UniversityPress, 1981), 308; and Helmut W Klassen,Michelangeb:
Architecture and the
on ofAnatomy (Montreal: McGillUniversity, 19 90) ~ 3.2
Michelangelo achieved the hn da -mental dimension of depth by
capturingthe movement of a figure through fore-shortening.
Foreshortening as understoodin the tradition of Renaissance
perspectiveconsists of the visual construct o f a
frontalgeometrical plane within whose frame thedepth of a body
might be articulated.Things and their proportions are flattenedto
correspond to the intelligibility of thisframe, so s not to be
distorted. Theextreme understan ding of this is Durer'scoordinated
system of projection . Fore-shortening as developed by
Michelangelonegates the reality of this fram e field byincluding
peripheral vision as well s whatfrontally stands out. This quality
of visionis what also defines the conception andexperience of
Michelangelo's arch itecture.On e senses in his work that our
bodilypresence haunts the built place in that thearchitecture moves
with us. Including theperipheral experience, his
architectureremains intelligible even when disto rted.(Klassen,
Michelangelo: Architecture a ndthe ofAnatomy,85-86.)21 It is well
established that no co mpletedrawings of his m ajor works
wereproduced before the ex ecution of the pro-jects; the Camp
odoglio in Ro me is agood example. For a very extended anal-ysis of
Michelangelo's work see James S.Ackerman, The Architecture o
fMichekangeh (London: A. Zweimmer,
Sketchesfir the staircase and v estibuk i n theLuurentian L ib m
v Michekangeb, 1525
Alberto Phz-Gdmez and Louise Pelletier
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
10/21
22 In the original Vitruvian context, theGreek word idea refers
to the three aspectsof a mental image (per haps akin to
theAristotelian phantasm), understood as thegerm of a project.
These ideas allowed thearchitect to imagine the disposition of
aproject's parts (Vitruvius, The Ten BooksofArchitecture, Book I,
ch. 2; Morris28 Hicky Morgan's translation, New York:Dover Publica
tions, 13-14).Ichnographiaand orthographia would eventually
betranslated as plan a nd elevation b ut donot originally involve
the system atic cor-respondence of descriptive geometry23
Sciagraphy, or sciography, derives ety-mologically from the Greek
skia (shadow)and graphou (to describe). It thus becomesrelated to
the proje ction of shadows inlinear perspective. In the ar
chitectura l tra-dition, how ever, sciagraphy mea nt adraugh t of a
building , cut in its length
and breadth, to display the interior, inother w ords, the
profile or sec tion. Thisuse of the term was still present in
thenineteenth century Encyclopedia ofArchitecture, London: T he
Caxton Press,1852). Mod ern Latin dictiona ries
translatescaenographia (the actual term as itappears in the first
existing Vitruv ianmanuscript) as the drawing of buildingsin p
erspective, and generally assume thatthis word is synonym ous with
sciagraphia.Th e fact is that perspective was unknow nin ancient
Rome, and even whenVitruv ius speaks about the three typesof stage
sets appropriate to tragedy,comedy, and satire (Book v, ch. 6 ,
thereis no mention of perspective in connec-tion w ith classical
theater. Vitruviusdescribes the fixed scaena as a royal
palacefaGadewith periaktoi, triangularpiecesof machinery which
revolve, placedbeyond the doors, and whose three faceswere
decorated to correspond to eachdramatic genre.
In n orthe rn I taly Daniele B arbaro, Palladio 's fr iend a nd
p atron , was also very careful toempha size that perspective was
no t an arch itectural idea in t he Vitruvian sense.I2 Its usewas
mainly recommended for painters and stage-set designers. Barbaro
believed thatsciographia (the third Vitru vian idea), translated as
perspective, resulted fro m a mis-reading in the original text of
the word scenogvaphia, whose application was importa ntonly in the
building of stage-sets. Indeed, the frontal perspective used in
scenographywas concerned with the surface of the picture plane and
did n ot involve the three-dimensiona li ty of l iv ed space, which
explains i ts restr ict ion to painting and theater . I tis in such
media that perspective fulfilled its symbolic function as a means
to disclose anontological depth. I4 Such dist inctions, the no rm
rather than th e exception during theRenaissance in Eu rope, reveal
the difficulties involved in conceiving a work o f architec-ture in
terms o f a two-dimensional set of projection^.^'Indeed, i t was
only in the seventeenth centu ry that perspective became a tr ue
Vitruvianidea. T he incept ion of the Car tes ian m odern w or ld
and the revolu t ion o f modern sci -ence introduced durin g the
baroque period a confl ict between symbolic and m echanis-ti c v
iew s o f t he ~ o r l d . ' ~his dualistic conception of reality
mad e i t possible forperspective to become a mo del of hu ma n
know ledge, a legit imate and scientific repre-sentat ion of the
infinite world. Baroque perspective in art an d architecture,
however,was a symbolic configuration, on e that al lowed reali ty
to k eep the quali t ies that i t hadalways possessed in an
Aristotel ian world. D urin g the seventeenth centu ry the
spaceoccupied by ma n was not homoge nized, and the primacy of
perception as the founda-t ion o f trut h was hardly affected by th
e implications of this new science and philosophy.Thus perspective,
as an architectural idea, became a privileged form of
symbolization.T h e architecture ofVersailles, for example, is not
expressed m erely in the plans an d sec-tions of the palace; its
mean ing rests primarily in the im plied (perspectival) order of
thegarden, the city, and the world, and in the epheme ral stage
sets and theatrical f ireworkstha t were a part of palace life.
Similarly, the architecture of the Jesuit church in Vien naby Andr
ea Pozzo can ha rdly be red uced to its section an d elevation.
Pozzo's fresco isinextricably t ied to th e three-dimensionality of
the architectural space. Rather thanremaining in the
two-dimensional field of representation, the perspective is
projectedfrom a precise poin t si tuated in actual space, and fixed
permanen tly on the pavem ent ofthe nave with a bronze marker. Th e
spatial order of th e dom e is revealed on ly at the pre-cise mo me
nt th at a hu ma n presence occupies the stat ion poin t of the i l
lusionisticquadrat tura fresco.Even tho ugh the theory o f
perspective, as an offspring of the ne w science, allowed ma nto co
ntrol an d do min ate th e physical reality of his existence, the
arts , gardening,and architecture d uring the seventeenth centu ry
were st i ll concerned with the reconcili-at ion of subject and
object an d with the revelat ion of an ordered cosmos. W h i l e m
a nconsidered himself auton omo us from external reality,
perspective al lowed him to dwell
Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
11/21
In B ook I, ch. 2, Vitruvius describes thisscaenographiaas 3o
nti s et laterum absce-dentium adumbratio a d circinique centvumom
niu m lin earum responsus. Both FrankGrange r (London : Harvard
UniversityPress, 1931) and Morris H icky Morga n(New York: Dover
Publications, 1960) intheir translations of Vitruvius read this
as'perspective." Granger's translation reads:"Scenography
(perspective) [is] theshading of the front and the retreatingsides,
and the co rresponden ce of all linesto the vanishing po int (sic )
which is thecentre of the circle." Hic ky Morgan'stranslation is
also problematic: "Pespectiveis the method of sketching a front
withsides withdrawing into the background,the lines all meeting in
the c entre of a cir-cle." These modern translations fail to
dojustice to the original text, in which the reis no allusion to a
vanishing point or tolinear perspective. Even if scaenographiameans
"to draw buildings in perspective,"the Latin o rigin of
perspective, perspicere,is a verb that m eans simply "to see
clearlyor carefully, to see throu gh."Barbaro argues that
scenographia,which is"related to the use of perspective," is
thedesign of stages for the three dram aticgenres. Approp riate
types of buildingsmus t be shown dim inishing in size andreceding
to the horizon. H e does notagree with "those that wish to
understandperspective (perspettiva) as one of theideas that
generate architectural design(dispositione)," ascribing to i t
thedefinition Vitruvius had given tosciographia. In his opinion it
is plain tha t"just as animals belong by n ature to a cer-tain
species," the idea that belongs withplan ( i~ h n o ~ ra p h ia )nd
elevation(orthographia),is the section (profio) , im-ilar to the
other two "ideas" that consti-tute architectural order
(dipositione). InVitruvius's conc eption, th e section "allowsfor a
greater knowledge of the quality andmeasurement of building, helps
with the
control of costs and the determination ofthe thickness of
walls," etc. Barbaro, infact, assumes that in antiquity
"perspec-tive" was applied only to the painte d rep-resentations o
n the side of the periaktoi.(La Practica della Perspettiua, 130).24
A subtle distinction was often drawnbetween prospettiua, generally
unde rstoodas the art of drawing complex geometricalvolumes
constructed from their planimet-ric elaborations (so as to
represent themthree-dimensionally), and perspettiva,which dealt
mainly with the surface of thepicture plane. Both words come
originallyfrom the Latin verb spectare, to see.Perspicere,mean ing
t o see clearly or care-fully, seems to have more passive conn
ota-tions than propicere, meaning to look outat, to iook forward or
tow ard an object.O n the other hand, the Italianpropettivaand
perspettiua were often used inter-changeably to name the new linear
per-spective. Piero della Francesca declaredpainting a mathematical
art in DeProspectiua Pingen di (Parma: BibliotecaPalatina, MS 1576;
reprint, Florence, 1942).He introduced the problem of construct-ing
regular and irregular bodies (th e latterbeing more important for
painters) as partof his treatise on linear perspective. LucaPacioli
in De Diuina Proportione (Venice,ryoq), after empha sizing the
sacred(Christian) character of the golden section,most useful for
architects, adde d fifty-ninef ~ l l - ~ a g eoodcuts o f regular
and irregularbodies drawn in perspective and based onmodels re
pared by Leonardo.Interestingly, Pacioli explained tha t thetwo mo
st imp ortan t solids for architectswere the 26-faced solid and the
72-facedsolid, both capable of approximating theconstructive
reality of domes a nd vaults.Barbaro mad e a distinction between,
thecontent of his published book, La Practica
della Perspettiua (Venice, 1569), and anunpublished manuscript
of practically theidentical title, a Practica &Ila
Prospettiua(Venice: Biblioteca Marziana, M S . IT I V39-5446). In
the former he teaches how torender buildings in perspective in
order toconstruct stage sets, starting from detailedinstructions
concerning polygons andpolyhedra, while in the latter he
dealsmostly with the study of geometrical bod-ies and their
relationship to perspective.Prospettiua, according to Barbaro,
ad-dressed the practical co ncerns of artistsand architects,
assuming that the essenceof built architectu re was evidently
thegeometrical lineamenti of these construct-ed bodies.
25 These crucial distinctions standdespite the well-docum ented
interest ofarchitects in the theater and the often per-ceived
continuity between the "tragicstage" an d the city of classical
architecture,as exemplified in Serlio's famous engrav-ings and
Palladio's Teatro Olimpico. Thisambivalence is in our opinion not a
logicalfault but an asset. It is, in fact, a funda-mental character
of Renaissance architec-tural intention and m ust be understood
ashaving co ntributed to the magical depthof many architectural
works and represen-tations as we know them today.26 Th e radical
changes brought abou t inthe realm of think ing by the scientific
rev-olution cannot be overemphasized.Alexander Koyre has shown in
hisMetaphysics an d Measurement (London:Cha pma n Hall, 1968) how a
world offixed essences and mathem atical lawsdeployed in a
homogeneous, geometrizedspace, much like the Platonic model of
theheavens, was assumed by Galileo to be thetruth of our experience
of the physicalworld. As an example, Galileo believed,after
postulating his law of inertia, thatthe essence of an object was no
t altered by
Alberto Pirez-Gdmez and Louise Pelletier
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
12/21
IUusmtion of aprojectedf;.sco ona ceding Andrea Pozzo 1707.zo ew
of the quadratturn i c o on a shallowdome a t the Jesuitenkirche
Andrea PozzoVimna 1705
Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivirm
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
13/21
motion. This notion, now an obvioustruth, was at odds with th e
traditionalAristotelian experience of the w orld, inwhich percep
tion was our prim ary accessto reality. Th is new conce ption
eventuallyled to a skepticism regarding the physicalpresence of the
external world. In theterms of Descartes, man became a
subjectconfronting the world as t rs a tema , as anextension of his
thinking ego.27 Anamorphosis as a projection ofbr m s beyond the
limits of the image wasalready known by the p ainters of
theRenaissance. In fact, one o f the earliestreferences to the art
o f anamorph osis canbe foun d in V ignola's Due Regok &
laPenpettiva Practica,where he described abasic method th at
follows the same laws ofvisual rays that he applied to develop
histheory of linear perspective. But themanipulation of imagesw s
still perceivedas an act of magic, and the technique ofanamorp
hosis remained secret. It is onlyduring the seventeenth century
that Jean-Fra n~o is iceron systematized the tech-nique as a
geometric construction andmade it in to a method. For a detailed
his-tory of anamo rphic art, see JurgisBaltrusaitis,Anamorphic Art
(New York:Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1976).28 This is also revealed in
the aims ofphilosophical systems throughout the sev-enteenth
century. For example, inhis Studies in Geometry of Situation
1679),G . W.Leibniz proposed a science ofextension that, unlike
Cartesian analyticgeometry, would be integral and notreducible to
algebraic equations. But thisproject of a descriptive geometry
moreuniversal than algebra could s till magicallydescribe the
infinite q ualitative variety ofnatural things. This transcendental
geom-etry was part of L eibniz's lifelong dream topostulate a
universal science, called byhim at various times lingua univenalis,
sci-entia uniunalis, calculusphilosophincc, andcalculw univenalis.
From all the disci-plines of human knowledge, he tried
toextrapolate the simplest co nstitutive ele-ments that would allow
him to establishrules of relation by which t o organize thewhole
epistemological field into a calcu-lus of concepts.29 Niceron
considered perspective as atool partly m agic, partly scientific.
Ratherthan a technique of reduction, it was forhim a vehicle by
which to attain truth. Inthe context of the Cartesian
revolution,Niceron's Thaumaturgur O pticus (Paris,1646) as his
reflection on appea ranceand reality.
mea ning hlly i n the physical world by changin g i ts geometric
dimension. In th eextreme, anamorphosis , anoth er type o f
perspective projection, involved th e dis tort ionof th e reali ty
i t represented. H ere a geometrical theory, no w clearly domi
nant, subject-ed no rm a l pe rcep t ion to i t s own s t ructu re
by p lac ing the po in t o f v iew in unexpectedplaces, often on
the surface of t he draw ing or painting i tselK2' By geometriz ing
theworld in such a confoun ding way, man gained access to a new
transcendental tru th .T h e dual nature o f baroque perspective is
evident in anam orphic works, whose per-spective both revealed the
t ruth of reality an d reflected m an 's power to m odify i t ;
that is,i t was a kind of magic.2Even tho ugh perspective becam e
increasingly integ rated with architecture,
perspectivalsystematization remained restr ic ted t o the creation
of a n i l lusion, quali ta t ively dis t inctfrom t he constructed
reali ty of the world. Perspective marked th e mom ent o f
anepiphany, the revelation of meanin g and the God-given geom etric
order of the world .For a brief t ime, i l lusion was the locus o f
r i tual . T he revelation o f order occurred at thep reca r ious
mo men t when the van ish ing po in t an d the pos i t ion o f the
obse rve r me t.
II Conical anamo'phosis of Louis XIII,J.E N i cmn, 1638.
Alberto Ph z-G dm ez and Lou Pelletier
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
14/21
12 Simpl edperspectiue methodGkulrdDesargue, 1648
30 For an extended analysis of the workofG. Desargues and a
complete biogra-phy, see RenC Taton,L OeuvreMathkmatique de G.
Desargues (Paris:P.U.F., 1951). See also A. Pera-Gomez,Architecture
and the Crisis ofModernScience (Cambridge: M T ress, 1983).31
Parallel lines did not converge ineuclidean space, where tactile
considera-tions, derived from bodily spatiality, werestill more
important than purely visualinformation. See Maurice
Merleau-Ponty,Phenomenology of Perception, Part I chap-ters 1 3.32
Kepler had already introduceda pointat infinity in a work on the
conic sections,Ad Ktelionem palalipomena quibwmtronomiaepars optica
traditur (1604).Hewas interested in the laws of optics andgenerally
in the nature and properties oflight. Desarguesw s in fact the
first toapply that notion to different theories onperspective and
stereotomy. Such anaccomplishment remains difficult to ap-preciate
from a contemporary vantagepoint, which regards visual perspective
asthe only true means of comprehending theexternal world.33
Orthogonal projection as we under-stand it today was for Desarguesa
simplec se of perspective projection where theprojective point was
located at an infinitedistance from the plane of projection.
While most seventeenth-century philosophers were still striving
to formulate theappropriate articulation of the relation between
the world of appearances and the abso-lute t ruth of modern
science, the work of Gerard Desargues appeared as an
anomaly.30Desargues disregarded the transcendental dimension of
geometry and the symbolicpower of geometrical operations, and he
ignored the symbolic implications of infinity.He sought to
establish a general geometric science, one that might effectively
becomethe basis for such diverse technical operations as
perspective drawing, stone andwoodcutting for construction, and the
design of solar clocks. Until then, theories ofperspective had
always associated the point of convergence of parallel lines with
theapex of the cone of vision projected on the horizon line.
Desargues was apparently thefirst one in the history of perspective
to postulate a point at in fin it^. ^ He maintainedthat all lines
converged toward a point at an infinite distance. Thus any system
ofparallel lines, or any specific geometrical figure, could be
conceived as a variation of asingle universal system of concurrent
lines.Desargues's method allowed for the representation of complex
volumes before construc-tion, implementing an operation of
deductive logic. Perspective became a prescriptivescience that
controlled practice. The scientific revolution had witnessed in
Desargues'ssystem the first attempt to endow representation with an
objective autonomy.Nevertheless, the prevailing philosophical
connotations of infinity, always associatedwith theological
questions, as well as the resistance of tradition-minded painters,
crafts-men, and architects, made his system unacceptable to his
contemporaries. Desargues'sbasic aims would eventually be fulfilled
by Gaspard Monge's descriptive geometry nearthe end of the
eighteenth century.Once geometry lost its symbolic attributes in
traditional philosophical speculation, per-spective ceased to be a
preferred vehicle for transforming the world into a meaninghlhuman
order. Instead, it became a simple representation of reality, a
sort of empiricalverification of the way in which the external
world is presented to human vision. Pozzo'streatise Rules a nd
Ekamples ofprope r Perspective fi r Painters andAr chitectsoccupies
aninteresting, perhaps paradoxical, position as a work of
transition. From a plan and anelevation, his method of projection
is a step-by-step set of instructions for perspectivedrawing that
establishes the absolute proportional relationship of those
elements seenin perspective. The last part of the book develops the
method of quadrattura, whereinthe three-dimensionality of
architectural space is subjected to the law of geometry.The
consequential homology of lived space and the geometric space of
perspectivalrepresentation led the architect to assume that the
projection was capable of truly de-picting an architectural space,
and therefore supported the possibility of actually design-ing in
perspective. The qualitative spatiality of our existence was now
identical to theobjectified space of perspective.In the eighteenth
century artists, scientists, and philosophers lost interest in
perspective.The process of geometrization that had started with the
inception of modern sciencewas arrested by the focus on empirical
knowledge spurred by Newton's work and theidentification of
inherent limitations in euclidean ge0metry.3~Architects seemed
readyto accept the notion that there was no distinction between a
stage set constructed fol-lowing the method per angolo of
Galli-Bibiena, one where there was no longer a privi-leged point of
view, and the permanent tectonic reality of their craft. Reality
wastransformed into a universe of representation. The baroque
illusion became a delusionin the rococo church. Even the vanishing
point of the frescoes became inaccessible tothe spectator, while
the building appeared as a self-referential theater, one in
whichtraditional religious rituals were no longer unquestionable
vehicles for existential orien-tation.%Despite all this, and in
addition to the early eighteenth-century academic at-tempts to
ridicule the secrets of the guilds and the ensuing systematization
of construc-tion after 1750 he primacy of the built work over the h
i s the comprehensive projectwith specifications, still remained.
Drawings were not yet mere predictive tools.
Architecturn1 Representation Beyond Perspectivism
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
15/21
34 Pozzo avoids the geometrical theory ofperspective, and his
theo retical discourseamounts to a collection of extremely sim-ple
rules an d deta iled examples of perspec-tive constructions. His
work can appear~aradoxicalf we com pare his frescoes inquadrattuta,
which involve an epistemo-logical recentering of man , to this very
sys-tematic establishment of proportions thatseems related to
Desargues's understand ingof geometry.35 Even though it is easy to
recognize arelationship between P o d s perspectivemethod and
Durand's use of projections,descriptive geome try could not have
beenpostulated as a systematic science beforethe nineteenth
century. Euclidean geome-try was conceived as a science of imm
edia-cy whose principles had their o rigin inperception. Euclid's
theorems are verifiableonly insofir as the things to which theymake
reference are accepted as variableand imprecise. The achievements
of seven-teenth-century geometricians had attaineda limit of
abstractio n and were neverdeveloped further. Throughout the
eigh-teenth century geom etry as a scientificdiscipline was becomin
g obsolete. Did erotwrites in his treatise De I lntnprrtationde la
Nature that before a hundred yearsthere will e scarcely three
geometrician sleft in Europe. For more details aboutthis aspect of
eighteenth-century philoso-phy, see Yvon Belval, La Cris e de laGQm
etrisation de I'Univers dans laPhilosophie des Lumikres, R m e Inte
r-nationalede Philosophie (Brussels, 1952 .36 Karsten Harries
examines this prob-lem in his excellent study The BavarianRococo
Church (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1983 .
13 and 14 Systematic cootdinationofplan and elevation with
pmspectiw,Andrea Pozzo, 1707
Alberta Phz-Gdmez and Louise Pelletier
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
16/21
37 Contr ary to the post-Heideggerianunderstanding of m
ythopoesis to w hichwe make reference in note (i.e., the
artic-ulation of truth as aletheia , the Beaux-Artsatte mp t to
retrieve the classical styleamounts to the imposition of a myth,
inthe negative sense, as a fallacious represen-tation of repressive
social hierarchies. Therendering of drawings in the B
eaux-Artstradition does not change the essenceof the architecture
it represents, nor doesit succeed in formulating an alternativeto
the architecture of the E coleP ~ l ~ r e c h n i q u e .he
Beaux-Arts does notretrieve myth through drawings, butrather, only
formalizes appearances, indeedmuch the way post modern styles do.
Th isis at odds with the possibility of retrievingmeaning through a
phenomenologicalunderstanding of symbolization.38 Th e question
concerning the applica-tion of computers t o architecture is,
ofcourse, hotly debated an d as yet unre-
34 solved. The instrument is not simply theequivalent of a
pencil o r a chisel that couldeasily allow one to transcend
reduction. Itis the culmination of the objectifying men-tality of m
odernit y and is, therefore,inherently perspectival, in precisely
thesense that we have described in this article.Computer graphics
tends to be just amuch qu icker and more facile tool
thatnonetheless still relies on the projection asits base, a
radical tool of industrial produc-tion. Th e tyranny of comp uter
graphics iseven more systematic than any othe r toolof
representation in its rigorous establish-ment of a homogeneous
space and itsinability to combine different structures ofreference.
It is, of course, conceivable thatthe machine would transcend its
binarylogic and become a tool for a poetic disclo-sure in the realm
of architecture. The factis, however, thar the results of compute
rgraphics applications are always disap-pointing. The
objectification of anotherreality appears more intense, and the
toolseems clumsy at best to show animatedpictures of a fallacious
building.39 Th e unnameable dimension of repre-sentation refers to
a wholeness thar can berecognized but n ot reduced to words andis,
in the context of Gadamer's hermeneu-tics, the signifi ed of the
artistic symbol.See below, note 40.40 Hans-Georg Gadam er has given
usone o f the clearest elucidations of thequestion of
representation in art in TheRelevance of the Beautif il,
(Cambridge:Cam bridge U niversity Press, 1986). Th ework of art ,
regardless of its medium or its
On ly after the nineteenth century and a systematization of
drawing methods could theprocess of translation between drawing and
building become transparent. The keytransformation in the history
of architectural drawing was the inception of descriptivegeometry
as the paradigmatic discipline for the builder, whether architect
or engineer.The Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, founded after the
French Revolution, trained thenew, professional class of eminen t
scientists and engineers of the n ineteen th century.Descriptive
geometry, the fundamental core subject, allowed for the first time
a system-atic reduction of three-dimensional objects to two
dimensions, making the controland precision demanded by the
Industrial Revolution possible. Without this conceptualtool our
technological world could not have come into existence. Wi th
Durand'smicanisme de l compositionand its step-by-step
instructions, the codification of archi-tectural history in to
types an d styles, the use of the grids and axes, transparent
paper,and precise decimal measurements allowed for planning and
cost estimates. Descriptivegeometry became the assumption behind
all mod ern architectural endeavors, rangingfrom the often
superficially artistic drawings of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts to th e
func -tional projects of the Bauhaus.?' Today computer graphics,
with its seductivemanipulations of viewpoints and delusions of
three-dimensionality, is simply a moresophisticated mech ani~ m.3
~he grow ing obsession with produc tivity and rational-ization has
transformed the process of maturation from the idea to the built
work intoa systematic representation that leaves no place for the
invisible to emerge from theprocess of translation.While
descriptive geometry attempted a precise coincidence between the
representationand the object, modern art remained fascinated by the
enigmatic distance betweenthe reality of the world and its
projection. Facing the failure of a modern scientific men -tality
to acknowledge the unnameable dime nsion of representation, artists
haveexplored that distance, the delay or fourth dimension in Marcel
Ducham p's terms,between reality and th e appearance of the world.
D efying reductionist assumptionswithout rejecting the modern power
of abstraction, certain twentieth-century architectshave used
projections not as technical manipulations, but to discover
something at onceoriginal and re~o~nizable .40nature as figurative
or non-objective mustreveal the presence of being, the presence
ofthe invisibk in the world of the everyday.This dimension is
perhaps the only con-stant of true a rt through history.
Partakingof this conditi on, the architectural works ofthe city
allowed for existential orientation,cultural belonging, and the
perpetuation oftradition. They were never merely build-ings.
Understood primarily as an abstractorder, architecture could be
embodiedat the scale of the reliquary, the garden, theephemeral
canvas-wood structure, or themachina for manifold celebrations
andtheatrical events. This no tion is connectedto the original
Greek understanding ofsymbol as a token that would allow an
oldfriend to be recognized by members of thehousehold (or any
institu tion) as a memberof the same group , a part of the
whole,belonging to a cosmic place. (We mustremember thar the word
agora meant botha place, and an assembly of citizens par-ticipating
in the decision-making processconcerning the futu re of their
polis. Asymbolic architecture is one thar repre-sents, one that can
be recognized as part of
our collective dreams, as a place of fullinhabitation. Th is
recognition is inherentlydifficult in a postmodern world where
manis generally oblivious to his mortality an dhas grown accustomed
to exploitation,simulations, and technological control; butit
happens to be, whether intentionally ornot, the most striking
feature of the mostadmired architectural artifacts in o ur
tradi-tion, in w hich the manifold symbols revealan order that is
immediately accessible tous. Thus, creation as representation
mustbe the ultim ate objective of architecturalwork if our
profession is to have any socialmeaning a t all. In a technological
world,this objective can be attained only after rec-ognizing the
fallacious neutrality of ou rtools for the generation of form.An
understanding of the autonomy andpolysemy of the symbols employed
by thearchitect is an importa nt first step in over-coming our
predicament. On e object, onemodel, or one drawing may indeedembo
dy the full intentionality of a build-ing. We can recognize the
invisible (theground of existence in the sense ofGadamer, a glimpse
of o ur place in a totali-
Architectur al Representation Beyond Perspectivism
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
17/21
IJ Marrel Duchamp and Katherine Dmimin ffitherineDm ieri living
mom Leslie E.Bowman 1936 37.
Alberto P hz-G 6me z and Louise Pcllrtier
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
18/21
16 Tu M', Marcel Duchamp, 1918
ty) in the artist-architect's work, similar toour recognition in
the spatial experience ofthe building.r When seen from the front,
the shad-
ows cast by the ready-mades are seen asanamorphic projections
stretched out onthe surface; the bottle brush, which is the
36 only three-dimensional object piercing thesurface of the
canvas perpendicularly to itsplane, is reduced to a dot. But seen
fromthe side, shadows of the ready-madesbecome corrected until they
disappearagain in the thickness of the canvas. At thispoint, the
brush releases itself from thecanvas and becomes the only
visiblereality of the hidden picture. In a series ofessays on the
work of Marcel Duchamp,Abeccdairc (Paris: Centre GeorgesPompidou,
1977),Jean Clair compares thepainting Tu m to classid theories
onanamorphosis.4 The Grrcn Box (a written thought pro-cess for the
Large Glass) reveals Duchamp'sinterest in scientific developments
in thefield of noneuclidean geometry.43 In the W;hiteBox Duchamp
asserts thatall form is the projection of another form
according to a certain vanishing point anda certain distance. By
analogy with thisnotion of projected reality, all solid bodieswould
constitute the possible projection ofan infinity of
four-dimensional entities.The entire visible domain is for
Duchampan incessant flow of anamorphosis generat-ed by those
invisible entities.44 To understand the fundamental dis-tinction
between the two uses of projectionin art and architecture,it is
essential tograsp the difference between truth as exact-ness in the
Platonic sense (the absence ofshadow of Western science and
meta-physics) and truth as alrtheia, the unveilingof being never
given in its totality, such asHeidegger posits it in his late
philosophy.
Marcel Duchamp also explored the paradigm of projection and
investigated theambiguous dimension between illusion and reality.
His last oil on canvas,Tu m'(1918),is a recapitulation of all the
perspectivist deceits allowed by an opaque medium. It is hismost
explicit study on anamorphosis, the perspectival distortions that
writers of theearly seventeenth century believed dangerous in their
capacity to manipulate andchange the given appearance of the world.
In Tu m Duchamp questions the distinctionbetween appearanceand
apparition. The painting is constructed as an anamorphosis,though
in contrast to all traditional works of this kind, the truth of the
image is nolonger revealed to the beholder from a fixed position. s
one walks around it, certainelements of the composition become
visible, while others vanish.41The Bride Stripped Bare y Her
Bachelors, Even (Large Glass)(1915-23) and theEtantDonns (1916)
embody Duchamp's life-long struggle to reveal an invisible
dimension ofprojection, one beyond the conventional boundaries of
Renaissance painting, sculpture,and architecture.42 The projection
on the lower part of theLarge Glass (the realm of thebachelors) was
conceived according to the rules of classical perspective, derived
directlyfrom the Renaissance concept of painting as a window
intersecting the cone of vision.The upper domain, however,
addresses the ambiguity between illusion and reality interms of a
four-dimensional object (the bride) projected in a
three-dimensional world.43Duchamp's bride in the Large Glass is
analogous to a shadow. The shadow, taken as aprojection or as an
entity in itself, is in some way determined by the object that
casts it.It, reveals the invisible side of the thing, outlines its
h idden face as a negative vision. At adistance from the projecting
light, however, the shadow becomes an autonomous entity(as in a
shadow play), an abstraction of the object projecting its
absence.Th e early twentieth century saw the recovery of aspects of
projection that had been lostto the reductions of
nineteenth-century industrialization. Like Duchamp's shadows,the
shadows of cinematographic projection re-embodied motion and
retrieved tactilespace from the perspective frame. Film offered a
possibility to transcend the limitationsof the technological,
enframed vision through the juxtaposition of different
realities.previously invisible, uncharted aspect of experience
found ex pr es si ~n .~The projection of the cone of light through
the darkness of the cinema can be seen asan inversion of the
Renaissance notion of the cone of vision. It illustrates the
reciprocityof light and shadow as an analogue of the
complementarity of presence and absence anddisrupts the fixed gaze
of the perspective, which is theobjectifying vision of
Westernscience and phi l~s op hy .~~uring the cinematographic
projection, we sit immobilebetween the light and the projected
images, in the enduring present of a space-time ofno fixed
dimensions.46
Architectural Representation Beyond Anpectivism
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
19/21
45 Western metaphysics emerges from aworldly vision which takes
the gift of day-light for granted a nd assum es, deeplyunconscio us
of itself and its projections,the permanent presence (parowia) of
oursource of illumination: conditions of totalunconcea lment,
making possible a visionof total lucid ity in perfect possession of
its(transparent) object. Western metaphysicsreflects a worldly
vision of tr uth which seesonly sharp boundaries and division,
theopposition pe rmanently fixed in duality.. . .But this is a
vision of truth whic h occlu sour experience with shadows and
shades(of meaning); the enchantment of the sun-set hour, the
uncanny light of the twi-light.. . David Michael Levin, TheOpening
of Vision (London: Routledge,1988),350-51.46 We can only witness
the extremes andrecognize their com plementa rity, at best(and here
the quality of the film is impor-tant) the reciprocity of action
and thinkingin Gehsenheit. (We use this term in thesense of
Heidegger's late writings.) s inarchitecture, the spec tator is not
passive,but rather, creatively participates in thereconstruction o
f tactile space suggested bythe montage.
7 Th e Large Glass; The BrideStripped Bare By Her
Bachelors,Marcel Duchamp, I~ZJ 23.
Albrrto Phez-Gdm rz and Louise Prlletier
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
20/21
47 Sergei Eisenstein describes his Intel-lectual Cineman as a
structure of com posi-tion that defines the abstract and makes
itappear. His me thod is based on analogy, ametaph or between the
figurative image andhuman experience:The power of montage resides
in that it
includes in the creative process the em o-tions and mind of the
spectator. The spec-tator is compelled to proceed along thatsame
creative road that the au thor traveledin creating the image. The
spectator notonly sees the represented element of thefinished work,
but also experiences thedynamic process of the emergence
andassembly of the image just as it was experi-enced by the author.
Sergei Eisenstein ,The Film m New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1942 .48 In this connectio n see M. Merleau-Ponty,
Phenomenology of Perception(London: Routledg e Kegan Paul, 1962 ~in
which he establishes what e mbodied per-ception couldn be by
disclosing its originalreality. Merleau-Ponty's thesis,
togetherwith the posthumous notes publishedunder the title The
Visibk an d the Invisibk(Evanston , Illinois: Northw
esternUniversity Press, 1968 ,are still among themost crucial
readings for the professionalarchitect.49 Sergei Eisenstein's
interest in Piranesi'sexplosion of perspective is well know
n.Piranesi's etch ings on th e Carceriare charac-terized by the
entanglement of beams, stair-ways and hung bridges that emerge from
thedepth of the image and are projected beyondthe limit of the
frame. The contrast of shad-ows creates an am biguity between
interiorand exterio r space. Th e structure of Piranesi'setchings
is projected forwa rd, beyond the
From its inception, perspective has had a potentia l to unify
the re la tive t ime o f ourworld with the absolute t ime of the
image. T he surrealis ts a nd, mo re specifically , surre-alis t f
i lmmakers , were a ttemptin g to redefine the dis tance between th
e world an d i tsrepresentation, a d is tance that w ould allow m
an to recognize his p lace in a new order.T h e cinematographic
montage provokes a disruption o f the spatia l and temporal
per-spective. I ts narrative confou nds the l inear s tructure of f
i lmic t ime, d ewn stru ctinghomogeneous, geom etric space? ' T he
projection of c inematographic monta ge is analo-gous to the
experience of a n em bodied, subjective spatia l ity , to the
experience of archi-tecture s it co ul d be. 48In the last two hund
red years , g iven the diff iculties of building a sym bolic order
in aworld preoccupied w ith pro duction and pragmatic shelter,
architectural ideas have beenparticularly em bodied in theoretical
projects of man y kinds. Architects such s GiovanniBatt is ta
Piranesi questioned the basis of perspective an d sough t new modes
o f meaning-ful representation. Piranesi's Gzrceri embod y the f ir
st u se o f m on tage in a rch itec ture todeconstruct the l inear
perspective of space and t ime.49 In the Gzrceri mean ing is
savedat t he expense of perspectival logic. Th e mystery of his
projective met hod dism embersspatial contin uity an d involves the
beholder i n a represented space that invites inhabita-t ion b ut
that u lt imately awaits the rebuilding of i ts d is located parts
.
edge of the drawing, into the space of the 8 Carceri, no. XI
second state),observer. Similarly, Eisenstein's intellectual G.B.
Piranesi, 1761montage attempted to include the presenceof the
spectator in the creation of the dynam-ic image.
Architcctuml Reprrsmtation Beyond Perspectivism
-
5/25/2018 Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism
21/21
jo Ther e is, of course, no way to define inabsolute terms the
boundaries between paint-ing, sculpture, and architecture ; these
haveshifted constantly through time and areclosely connected to
their respective content.In the recent Venice Biennale (1990)a
criticnoted that painters were doing sculpture,while sculptors were
dealing mostly with flatsurfaces.5 Theoretical projects from
Piranesi toDuch amp, including some works in filmmontage, establish
a space tha t resists thedom inatio n of the
rational/perspectivevision. Some of the most outstanding worksof
architecture, such as examples by Ga udiand Le Corbusier, subverted
the reductiveinstrumentality of architectural representa-tion and
also aimed at transcending theenframing vision. These powerful
worksunveil the true potential of architecture in apostmodern
world.5 Piranesi actually rejected many comm is-sions and called
himself an architect, whileBoullCe emphasized, in his Essai su I
Art,that his architecture was of the sort ofNewton's cenotaph, and
not his many build-ings. An important challenge that has beentaken
up by John Hejduk is the implementa-tion o f fictional narratives
as part of themontage in order to ground the theoreticalproject in
the w orld of experience. This is acomplex and important aspect of
the discus-sion that unfortunately cannot be pursuedhere.
This architecture represents a potentially different future
order beyond the conventionalcategorization of the fine arts, now
obviously 0bsolete.5~ uch architecture cannotbe seen as reduced to
a syntactic set of projections. Theoretical projects have been bo
thexperimental in scientific pursuit of discovery and poetic in
artistic pursuit of theworld's given order. Neither intuitive n or
irrational, these works are suffused with theLogos of m yth.5'Co
ntinu ing in this tradition, recent theoretical projects have sough
t the deconstruc-tion of the logocentric metaphysical heritage of
mod ernity as it appears in architecture,while trying to avoid,
through the implementation ofpoeisis, a mere acceptance of
thenihilistic status quo of poststructuralist criticism. Thro ugh
their author s' radical revisionof the task of making as it relates
to architectural ideation, these projects attemp t torecover an
architecture tha t mig ht reveal the presence of being. Such an
architecturewould remove the objectifying, instrumentalizing screen
of industrial technology andwould speak to ou r prereflective, embo
died awareness.Th e critical dimension implicit in these projects
is well kn0wn.5~ hey are not form alis-tic or self-referential
games, nor are they merely unbu ilt w orks. Theoretica l
projectsquestion the possibility of a truly poetic architecture in
a prosaic world. In this sense theprojects are the architecture;
they are not a surrogate for anything else.
In the context of our cities of shopping m alls and traffic
networks, the images of fash-ion, whether of old Europe or m odern
technology, are empty simulations. The y carryno mean ing except to
weakly reaffirm the repressive structures of power of w hich
thoseimages speak. To assume that the tools of projection and
perspective are supported bysome sort o f transcendental tru th is
equally nostalgic. A critical step toward our retrievalof an
architecture throug h esthetic wonder is to question the hegem ony
of perspec-tivism and its simulations. When projections function as
surrogates of buildings, whensets of drawings attem pt to provide
us with a picture of an architectural place orobject, the buildings
prod uced by such techniques m ust necessarily reflect the
predictivequality of their conception: the possibility of a
revelatory dimension is abando nedand the actualization of the
architect's imagination will inevitably be lost in the
transla-tion. That this assumption of a literal relationship
between the project and the build-ing is basic to industrial pr
oductio n in the m odern city makes a critical reassessment ofthis
issue all the more pressing.
Alberto PPrez-Gdmez and Louise Pelletier