Vitruvius:
A codified characterization and description of the temple form derived from his study of Greek architecture. It is significant that Chapter 1 is titled "First Principles of Symmetry." Also significant is the “foot” which becomes a base unit of measure, derived from the proportions of the human body which, as it has come from Nature, is perfect.
Boullee:
He is recounting a conversation which, presumably, he was present at. The question posed for discussion is, “Are the basic principles of architecture derived from Nature?” People relate to the “human condition” thus anything that is symmetrical and proportional is pleasing to the eye.
Durand:
He summarizes the works of Vitruvius and Laugier (imitation of the human body and the hut, respectively) then politely disagrees with their conclusions. “Fitness and economy,” are the principles that must be met. Economy is further characterized by symmetry, regularity and simplicity.
It would seem there is something about symmetry, whether it is a means to an end (Durand) or it is the means (everyone else). There is an instinctive beauty that is universally perceived in that which is symmetrical. In our “universe” we also relate most readily to Nature (with a capital “N”) where symmetry is ever-present. In mathematics symmetry is a basic property of pure geometrical shapes (i.e. the circle, the square, etc.). It is not much of a leap to presume a correlation between such geometry and nature with symmetry as a common thread.
Here's my favorite quote:
“If we imagine a Palace with an off-centre front projection, with no symmetry and with windows set at varying intervals and different heights, the overall impression would be one of confusion and it is certain that to our eyes such a building would be both hideous and intolerable.” -Boullee
Take that Frank Gehry.

3 comments:
i happen to agree with M. Boullee, at least with regard to M. Gehry (and especially with that particular structure)
Symmetry.. I work for a high end res firm, we do million dollar renovations near wall street. All we do is line things up, make sure everything is even and balanced.. That's what we do, that's what they want.
Why? We are architects, we design. If it's not symmetric, sometimes it's not clear whether or not someone actually designed it. By making it symmetrical, we are showing we put some thought into it, as far as I can tell. What we are really doing, then, is distinguishing ourselves from non-architects.. developers, armchair archs.. whatnot.
When all we can do is rush and do things as fast as profitable, symmetry just sells..
well, symmetry has as you know an ancient tradition for monumental architecture. but Troy made the point explicit -- the issue is its connection to a Principle, which of course links up to Nature. Durand is not polite, he's being a real asshole, and for good reason. Why repeat dead stuff. Well, of course, he's establishing another set of principles.
Post a Comment