Rationalism in Architecture

How has the need to justify architectural works affected the development of modern architecture since the beginning of the 18th century?

In the 18th century, what came to be known as the Age of Enlightenment dominated the world.

It was a philosophical movement brought on by the progress in science as well as philosophical ideas challenging traditional doctrines. This brought on a lot of changes within the society, affecting everything from politics to art. Architecture, up until that point, had been inspired by or reflected traditional ideas and ways of thinking. The changes as a result of the Enlightenment allowed architects to reconsider the relationship between structure and space and the functionality of a building, giving birth to movements that represent these new ideas.

Modern ideas initially started to emerge as a response to the Enlightenment, which brought along many changes within the society. It was a challenge to tradition and dogmatic beliefs and played a part in architectural progress. Scientific advancements gave the opportunity to argue for a society based upon reason rather than faith, placing importance on facts gained by observation and experimentation rather than traditional doctrines.

We can define rationalism in architecture as ‘the belief that architectural forms not only required rational justification but could only be justified if they derived their laws from science.’¹ Within the movement, beauty and artistry were drawn from forms that were considered logical. This shows society’s newfound ideals resulted from the Enlightenment. They preferred things to be done in accordance with rational criteria in all aspects of life. Jacques-Louis David, the preeminent painter of the era, expressed these ideals by suggesting that ‘the artist must be a philosopher and have no other guide except the torch of reason.’²

The characteristics of the rationalistic architecture of the 18th century were defined by symmetry, accurate measurement of classic shapes, and functionality.

Classical Rationalism emerged as a form of Rationalism and became widespread. It was a reaction to the flamboyant and excessive Baroque and Rococo styles. The movement put an emphasis on new scientific discoveries on the strength of materials, order, proportion, simplicity (but more flexible as opposed to the original Classical notions), logical approach to planning, establishing the program of a structure based on the needs of the client and symmetry as opposed to graze, ornamentation and asymmetry which defined the Rococo style. Pure geometric forms such as spheres, squares, and cylinders were used and the belief that reason and natural forms were tied together was emphasized.

The Church of St. Genevieve is an example of Classical Rationalist architecture, which shows the characteristics of the movement such as the use of geometric shapes and proportions. The overall shape of the church is symmetrical as can be seen from the plan. The Gothic Cathedral which was built with classical principles was considered very ambitious due to it being structurally daring. The building, despite being difficult to execute, follows the Rationalist principles by ‘limiting aesthetic effects to those which logically followed from the nature of the structural components, and designing those components in accordance with rational criteria.’¹ What this means is that even though it’s not necessarily a simple structure, it uses the most simple and reasonable design that would serve the purpose of the building.

Gothic Rationalism had also emerged as a part of Rationalistic ideology, however in the 18th century, it was indistinguishable from Classical Rationalism.

The reason why it was favoured a lot by the Rationalists was that ‘…it was impossible to separate the form of thirteenth-century architecture from its structure since every member of that architecture was the consequence of a structural need. Hence it was impossible to remove or attach any decorative forms without doing harm to the building’s solidity.’¹ What Peter Collins meant by this was that every structural part of the building was dependent on the other parts to stand up. In other words, removing a part of the structure would cause the rest of the building to collapse or damage it in another way. This shows that no part was added for the sake of decoration only. They all had a reason to exist. Rationalism demanded every part of a building to have a reason to be built and all parts had be justified based on structural rather than aesthetic reasons.

Rationalism in all forms was the most widespread architectural movement of the 19th century. Collins suggested that ‘many buildings which appear to be simply examples of Revivalism were in fact honest attempts to put Rationalist ideals into practice.’¹ We can claim that this is true as rationalism is based on reason and copying styles based on the most logical structural system suitable for the era is a reasonable decision if something original is not available. So bringing back older styles if they meet the needs of the society can be justified using the rationalist ideology.

Rationalists broke off into separate groups in the 19th century.

This was a result of what is referred to as the Battle of Styles. Since the 19th century didn’t have a specific style it was known for, in search of a style that would define the era, architects experimented with different styles of the past. The most significant ones within Rationalism were Gothic, Classical, and Eclectic Rationalism. Classical and Gothic formed their separate groups despite being classed together in the 18th century because of their disagreement on how new styles would evolve. Classicists argued that there was no need to go back to the Middle Ages in order to begin the evolutionary process. In fact, the only strong argument that can be made in favour of the imitation of Gothic forms was that Gothic was the most scientific system of masonry construction available.

Léonce Reynaud explained this suggesting ‘…the art of the Middle Ages is dead, and although one can galvanize a corpse, one cannot bring it back to life. It is precisely because thirteenth-century architecture was true in its day that it would be completely false now.’¹ One can agree with this as Reynaud makes a fair point. Each era has a society with different needs and requires new adjustments within architecture. On the other hand, suggesting that a building is not suitable for the era only and only because it belongs to the past would be wrong. There were other reasons why a new style was needed but the main objective behind these attempts to find a style was because of a newfound awareness of the history and evolution of architecture and the will to create a style that would define the century.

This gave rise to Revivalism and anti-revivalism, the former being in favour of bringing back the styles or a style of the past and the latter against it. Peter Collins argued that ’the Revivalists were dominated by their awareness of the legacy of history [and] the anti-Revivalists were dominated by their awareness of the evolutionary nature of history.’¹ This shows that Revivalists justified their use of older styles based on their previous success and anti-Revivalists refrained from doing so because they believed the styles needed to evolve with society.

The Palace of Westminster is an interesting example from the 19th century, as despite being a Gothic Revivalist building, rationalist features were used on it.

Standardised fenestration patterns and ventilation ducts as well as the use of iron frames for structure make it a contemporary form of Gothic at the time it was constructed. David Boswell Reid, a Scottish physician, was the consultant and advised Sir Charles Barry, the architect, to use the thermo-ventilation system which required large ventilation ducts and tall chimneys. If he had his way, most of the building would have consisted of ventilation ducts, however, Barry and Reid managed to come to an agreement at the end. This marked ‘the first occasion when mechanical services had a real influence on architectural design.’¹ In other words, the building, not only brought back a style of the past reflecting more traditional ideas (which was appropriate for its function), it also managed to include modern ways of construction which had a significant effect on the design.

Eclectic Rationalism was also a significant part of architectural development in the 19th century and possibly produced the most different results in terms of stylistic changes.

Eclectics argued that ‘no one should accept blindly from the past the legacy of a single philosophical system (or of a single architectural system) to the exclusion of all others, but that each should decide rationally and independently what philosophical facts (or architectural elements) used in the past were appropriate to the present and then recognize and respect them in whatever context they might appear.’¹ What this means is that instead of choosing one particular style from the past that was deemed successful, one could design using different elements from different styles that could be rationally justified and bring them together to create a whole new style.

Library of St Genevieve, designed by Henry Labrouste, is considered an example of Renaissance Revival, however, one can argue that Renaissance Revival is a form of Eclecticism. The Renaissance style was mostly taken from Ancient Rome and Greece which was then altered to fit the modern needs of society. Limitations were not as strict as classical requirements, which allowed the architect to choose forms that were best suited for the building. This as well as its adaptability and lack of demand that the structure needs to fit into ‘preconceived compositional shapes’ supports the argument that we can consider the Library of St Genevieve (1843) eclectic. Nikolaus Pevsner commented on the building in his book An Outline of European Architecture (1960):

Labrouste’s design and outstandingly sympathetic handling of iron as a building material is considered revolutionary.³

His quote illustrates how Classical requirements were changed in accordance with Rationalist ideas. The use of new structural materials meant that they had to be integrated into the style and Labrouste proposed an iron structure based on the needs of the accommodation. This was due to the fact that he had to use very thin columns to let air and light circulate in all directions and iron was a strong enough material to achieve this. This affected the look of the building as despite being an example of Renaissance Revival, it had the characteristics of a more modern style. These characteristics are significant as they contributed to the evolution of architecture from simply being an imitation of the past to emphasizing the use of new elements to create structurally convenient buildings.

Rationalism, despite being prevalent, did not actually produce distinct results until the late 19th/early 20th century.

This was due to the lack of industrialization. In the 20th century, the rationalistic approach toward architecture took a new turn when architects started to look at the relationship between structure and decoration differently. The idea that structure could exist without decoration and still create space was embraced. It was argued that this would cause architecture to be regarded as a branch of engineering rather than art⁴, however, it gave birth to what we now know as Modernism.

Rationalism in the 19th century failed to create a new and specific style that would define the era because, despite the Industrial Revolution, industrialization was not a fad yet. Despite various experiments with new elements such as iron, a new style was only created when the use of machinery brought along industrial architecture. Hence, Modernism was defined by the use of new elements such as steel and glass as well as iron.

When compared to 18th and 19th-century examples of architecture, rationalism in the 20th century differs a lot in terms of how it looks, however, the principles that were practised by the architects were very similar, if not the same. Le Corbusier, one of the most influential architects of Modernism made the point that ‘religions have established themselves on the dogmas, the dogmas do not change; but civilizations change and religions tumble to dust.’⁵ This directly relates back to the ideals that brought along the Enlightenment. People wanted to break away from traditional rules and make decisions based on reason.

All examples of Rationalist architecture from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries wanted to justify the form and all parts of a structure using logical reasons.

In earlier examples of Rationalism, however, there were still aspects of traditional ideals. 20th century’s advancements in materials and structural engineering meant that the need to rely on traditional rules was removed. Objects were designed based on functional purposes. These included ships, aeroplanes, and automobiles. The architects wanted to adapt to mechanical analogy and this is best expressed in Towards a New Architecture (1923) by Le Corbusier when he said ‘a house is a machine for living in.’⁵

La Villa Savoye is one of the most well-known examples of Le Corbusier’s work. The characteristics of the building also make reference to the innovative engineering techniques of the 20th century. For instance ‘the curved glass façade of the lower floor matches the turning radius of automobiles from 1929’.⁶ Also, all sides of the building were designed in accordance with the orientation of the sun. Corbusier argued that ‘the motor car is an object with a simple function (to travel) and complicated aims (comfort, resistance, appearance)…’⁵ This quote suggests that La Villa Savoye was inspired by the motor car. The movement within the house (circulation), the needs of the client (functionality), and the use of materials that would last were all prioritized during the design process. The only thing that makes it so different from the 18th and 19th centuries is the appearance which is a result of new materials due to the advancements brought along by the century.

The interest in technology and what advancements it would bring along intrigued many architects.

Futurism was one of the movements inspired by these changes. The pre-eminent architect of Futurism was Antonio Sant’Elia who criticised 18th and 19th centuries’ rationalist attempts as ‘a moronic cocktail of the most various stylistic elements.’⁷ He had distinct ideas for reinventing architecture. He strongly disagreed with using older styles to create new ones, considering the practise absurd. Sant’Elia instead wanted a fresh start that he assumed would be brought along by war so that whole cities could be redesigned. His designs were very dynamic; horizontal and vertical lines were avoided when possible and technological aspects of the structures were glorified.

Sant’Elia’s designs mark important aspects of Modernist Architecture. They are good examples to show the 20th century’s fascination with technology, industrialism and functionality. They also point towards a similar need to have a dominant style that would represent the era back in the 19th century. As intended, the designs are very similar to the buildings we see in big cities today, which suggests that they contributed to the evolution of architecture.

One can argue that Rationalism has been the backbone of pretty much all valid architectural movements since the 18th century, despite being interpreted differently by architects of different centuries.

We can follow a clear path from the 18th century, when traditional rules were questioned and logical alterations were made whilst designing buildings, the 19th century, when traditional styles were changed even more and mixed together at times to suit the needs of society, to the 20th century, when traditional styles were abandoned altogether with industrialisation and availability of new materials. Significantly different results were produced but architecture and science always had an alliance throughout the centuries. This came from the need to justify architectural works, which itself stemmed from the Age of Reason.

References

[1]: Collins, P. (1998) Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture, 1750–1950. McGill-Queen’s Press

[2]: David, J. Jacques-Louis David. [Online] [Accessed on 22/03/2016] http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/artists/538/jacques-louis-david-french-1748-1825/

[3]: Pevsner, N. (2009) An Outline of European Architecture. New York: Penguin Books

[4]: Blomfield, R. Connel, A. (1932) Modernism. Radio Debate

[5]: Corbusier, L. (1923) Towards a New Architecture. London: Butterworth Architecture

[6]: Kroll, A. (2010) AD Classics: Villa Savoye / Le Corbusier. [Online] [Accessed on 18/10/2023] http://www.archdaily.com/84524/ad-classics-villa-savoye-le-corbusier

[7]: Sant’Elia, A. (1914) Antonio Sant’Elia: Manifesto of Futurist Architecture. [Online] [Accessed on 18/10/2023] https://designmanifestos.org/antonio-santelia-manifesto-of-futurist-architecture/

If you enjoyed this post and would like to read more, you can subscribe here — https://medium.com/subscribe/@ella_harris to get an email whenever I publish a story. You can also buy me ☕ via — https://ko-fi.com/ella_harris

This post contains affiliate links. If you use these links to buy something I will earn a commission. Thanks.