Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc

Modern Architecture is a subject that is the most difficult to understand in terms of style and design. Many architects during the 19^th Century struggled to become original in their styles as well as the meaning and thoughts behind the architecture. There are three significant individuals from this time period who had understanding and ideologies that were similar in some aspects but different in others about architecture and the course it would take in the future. John Ruskin, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, and Gottfried Semper, the main subject of this blog post, all published ideas throughout their lives which are still significant in today’s academic world when try to understand Modern Architecture. The simple reason for this is that their very ideas paved the path into Modern Architecture and a new era of thought and creativity. For the remainder of this post I plan to compare and contrast the beliefs and ideas of Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc on the broad subject of Architecture.

Semper, unlike Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc who admired Gothic style architecture, took interest in Greek architecture. During the Greek period, many of the buildings were designed to fit the needs of people during the time which is why Semper took an interest in Greek architecture.  Semper was an advocate of function in a building which is clearly represented in his book, “The Four Elements of Architecture”. The book shares his belief that all buildings should integrate the four elements (hearth, substructure, roof, and enclosure) in order to be functional and fit the needs of people.  Much like Viollet-le-Duc, Semper takes the rational approach to design which differs greatly from the emotional view Ruskin takes on architecture. Semper focuses on structural technology when designing. This does not mean that ornament was foreign in his style.  Semper clearly believed in eclecticism which is evident in his design of the Semper Opera House.

http://travel.roro44.com/europe/germany/Semper_Opera_Dresden_Germany.jpg

As stated before, Ruskin’s preferred choice in architectural style was Gothic which may be one of the only common factors between himself and Viollet-le-Duc. The understanding and reasons that each individual admired the Gothic style was one of the major differences that lead both Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc down separate paths. Viollet-le-Duc admired Gothic architecture for the structural technology which can be considered a rational approach as opposed to Ruskin’s emotional approach. Ruskin credited the ornament and the craftsmanship of the Gothic style as evidence that it can be considered architecture.

Being interest in the structure of the Gothic style, it is easy to see that Viollet-le-Duc was very interested in steel and iron and how it could be incorporated into his designs and restorations. These major two defining characteristics of Viollet-le-Duc are two major subjects that Ruskin opposed greatly. Ruskin believed in stone as the only suitable building material along with a few native materials such as plaster. Material was something that Semper and Ruskin had common beliefs about. Each of them believed that material should always be displayed in its true form and the materials should not be mimicked. Finally, Ruskin, Semper, and Viollet-le-Duc each had different opinions of restoration. Viollet-le-Duc clearly thought that it was a good thing; he felt it was a way to bring part of present day into history. Viollet-le-Duc’s work was mainly restoration and he did not try to restore buildings to their original state, rather he redesigned the parts of the buildings that were lost. Ruskin’s beliefs were simply this, restoring a building is one of the worst forms of devastation a building may encounter. Semper, lastly, lands somewhere in the middle in his approach to restoration. Semper simply tries to bring the building back to life with the same amount of passion and style with minimal change even though there is some occasionally.