Comparing Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc

 

 

 [res·to·ra·tion]

               n. the return of something to a former condition.

[pres·er·va·tion]

               n. to maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.

 [con·ser·va·tion]

               n. the careful utilization of something in order to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss

There is no doubt that architecture is and has been used as a historic lens of the past. However, as time lingers on the interpretation of how this architecture, and the historic significance it holds, should be dealt with.

To restore. To preserve. To conserve. 

Each idea sparks controversy in this debate. Viollet-le-Duc, Ruskin, and Semper outline specific yet differing views, but nonetheless were dealing with a common issue: the existence of a architectural past in a rapidly modernizing world. 

 Viollet-le-Duc believed the answer to be a collaboration of modern and historic language. His belief is best discerned in his restoration projects such as Pierrefonds.

Viollet-le-Duc believed in the free interpretation of restoring the architectural past, an idea thoroughly ridiculed by Ruskin. I believe Viollet-le-Duc was correct in this modest claim, but his idea that to restore a building "is to recreate it in a Complete form, indeed a form which might never have existed," seems counterproductive. The goal of restoration is to return something to a former condition. Viollet-le-Duc's "recreation" discredits the concept of returning to a former condition; for if it truly never had exisited, it cannot be considered restored. Although Viollet-le-Duc's ideas seemed outlandish, they explored one extreme of a historic and modern relationship. Ruskin would argue that this extreme relationship, which allowed the modern architect complete freedom in interpretation and implementation on the architectural past, was a dangerous, fake, and undisciplined practice. 

Ruskin believed restoration, such as Viollet-le-Duc's restoration of Pierrefonds, erased the accumulate history in the structure. The castle was no longer a element of the historic past, it lacked the true meaning of the style for which it was intended; defense, society, and the feudal community. I believe Ruskin feared that restoration embellished architectural forms and did not consider the actual functionality behind the structure; both culturally and chronologically. Artful expression preceded the actual functional significance. For this reason, Ruskin wanted to preserve the historic past, not restore it by expressing it in a modern context. The beauty in architectural past was the history accumulated in its form, science, culture, society, and purpose. Without these, the structure had a false description, lacking the sacrifice, truth, power, life, obedience, and memory it once held. This is true, for facts without meaning are lifeless. It is for this reason why Ruskin is known for ridiculing the Crystal Palace as a modern form of Gothic architecture. Although it attempted to "modernize" a classic form, it did not respect the true nature and purpose the "gothic form" ensued. Ruskin's fight to keep the architectural past a truthful historic lens inspired many later architects such as Corbusier, Wright, and Sullivan. His ideas shook the idea of restoration and seemingly steered it as a means of preservation. Semper seems to come in and bridge the gap Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc created between themselves. Whereas Ruskin was about preserving the past and Viollet-le-Duc was about translating the past into a modern context, Semper attempted to consider the history Ruskin longed to preserve and brought it into Viollet-le-Duc's modern context. 
Semper is known for his logical, almost systematic approach to historic conservation. He understood the socio-political context of the architectural constructs, but also attempted to classify the architectural forms specific to the time period. This coupling of form and function made for a deliberate and disciplined manner into revealing historic architecture into the modern world. His formula for interpreting the past consisted of two main components: the function must equal the artifact. In this case, the artifact was a compilation of materials, techniques, religion, climate, politics, patrons, and personal expression. Furthermore, he believed architecture borrowed its types from pre-architectural conditions of the human settlement. Style was a composition of symmetry, eurythmy, proportion, and direction. All these elements are evident in Semper's work, including Semper Opera House.

The construction itself is a prime example of the basic geometric and functional principles Semper followed: symmetry of the entry, proportion of the terraces, circling direction of the facade, selection of materials, and integration of structure and form. Furthermore, he believed in the principle that each construct consisted of 4 main elements: the hearth, the structure, the roof, and the enclosure. Again, this was a basic relation to pre-architecture habitats. This idea would be adopted by modern architects like F.L. Wright to create hearth-centered residences. Although Ruskin would argue against Semper's embellishment of artistic form, he would appreciate the more delicate execution in which Semper approached historical context. He chose a disciplinary formula and introduced the architectural past in a consistent manner which accounted for the context and function of the architecture. This systematic and almost moral approach conflicted with Viollet-le-Duc's ultimate freedom of modern expression. Conservation became a disciplined expression that began to fill the gap between  preservation and restoration.


Semper, Tuskin, and Viollet-le-Duc were confronting an issue that had never been dealt with before: the relationship between modern and historic. Although they compiled vastly different views, they discovered the extremes this relationship could undertake. I believe that the architectural past must be a complete consideration of the context, function, and purpose behind the original structure. Architecture of this sort needs to be a lens to the past, and we must try to suspend the implications of modern expression to ensure truth in the form and function.