CHAPTER 2
BAROQUE, FRENCH CLASSICISM AND ROCOCO(1650–1750)
The baroque period experienced a greater prevalence of drawing than the Renaissance. Sketches continually proliferated, as architects were less dependent upon rules of proportion and enjoyed the freedom characteristic of baroque architecture. Growing access to paper products and continually more complex building programs perpetuated the need for sketching. A desire to express the more emotional states of architecture, and describe secondary endeavors such as theater set design, encouraged architects’ visual communication. As reflective of construction practices, patronage, and baroque style, it is possible to assess traits common to the sketching techniques of late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century architects.
The name of the baroque style may have originated with the word barocca, describing an ill-shaped pearl (Trachtenberg and Hyman, 1986; Briggs, 1967). Although this connection is not completely substantiated, it may yet be an appropriate comparison, especially when seen from the eyes of the artists and architects of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The ‘pure’ rendition of antiquity in Renaissance classicism and the mannerists’ formalized expression led to a freedom in translation, and a more liberal transformation of classical elements.
The high baroque may have seemed an emotional distortion of Renaissance ideals (Millon, 1999). A definition of its form was manifest quite disparately in various regions of Europe. With Francesco Borromini and Filippo Juvarra, the baroque was an extension of the Italian Mannerist movement; the French created a more restrained version often referred to as baroque classical; and the German baroque, located primarily in Bavaria and displayed in religious architecture, acquired a more fluid interpretation called the rococo.
As a movement, the baroque began with a rejection of strict rules, and ceased when the participants felt restraint was again necessary, being weary of relatively uninhibited freedom. Renaissance space was stationary, with clearly ordered elements forming volume. Baroque, on the other hand, allowed form to extend from the surface of the walls to make exuberant and dramatic three-dimensional mass (Briggs, 1967; Millon, 1961).
The papacy in Rome adopted the baroque style, both in the funding and commissioning of projects of great scale, and in their eagerness to exalt the Church by creating a new style distinct from pagan Roman antiquities. The wealthy papal families were enthusiastic patrons, ready to exert their status through the building of churches and palaces. Because of the growing population and expanding boundaries of Rome, such wealth also built numerous villas in the hills around the city. This period of building held many advantages for art and architecture professionals, as wealth allowed cultural activities to expand. This architecture was of the same lineage as the Renaissance but was more expansive, using a complex vocabulary of ovals and ellipses, axial site layout, and interiors of marble, relief stucco, and lighting effects (Briggs, 1967; Millon, 1999; Hersey, 2000).
The seventeenth century was an age of reason (Ward, 1926; Kaufmann, 1955; Benevolo, 1970). France had become united under the monarchy after years of religious wars. The monarchy funded public works and commissioned royal building projects that employed architects, decorators, and craftsmen up to the time of the revolution. Academies in the various arts were founded, preparing guidelines for genuine French classicism (Trachtenberg and Hyman, 1986). French architecture assumed a relatively conservative approach. The baroque had moved north from Italy, but French architects were less invested in its ideals, transforming it to fit a ‘national style’ (Kaufmann, 1955; Norberg-Schulz, 1971). Partaking in very little exaggeration, these architects advocated a unified, symmetrical, and restrained exterior articulation. In contrast, interior decoration reflected the appearance of French rococo with mirrors and arabesque high relief.
The Germanic countries participated less in the Renaissance interest of antiquity because of their gothic tradition. However, with the building of churches throughout Bavaria, rococo style flourished across the Alps. Basically an architecture stemming from local expression, rather than royalty or the Catholic Church, resulted in interiors flooded with light displaying visionary ceiling paintings (Trachtenberg and Hyman, 1986; Briggs, 1967; Powell, 1959). The palaces of Austria also featured these sculptural effects with the designs of such architects as Johann Lukas von Hildebrandt and Johann Bernhardt Fischer von Erlach.
SKETCHES; INFLUENCES ON STYLE AND TECHNIQUE
Humanism extended literary scholarship into an age of reason. Music and theater thrived with wealthy patrons in attendance. Architects easily crossed between theater and architecture, as they had in the past with painting and sculpture. Juvarra was a baroque architect whose many drawings for theater sets show the fluid motion and illusionary fantasy of temporary stage production. Of great influence on these architects, the Bibiena family was producing imaginative scenery for musical theater and festivals. Similarly, Juvarra and Giuseppe Galli da Bibiena were creating fantasies that departed from contemporary experience, vedute ideate (Millon, 1999).
This interest in the theatre and its immediacy affected the sketching and drawing styles of baroque architects. The illusion of stage sets and the movement inherent in the media of theater encouraged a different attitude toward representation. Theater inherently had less structural significance and required less construction time. Based on illusion, it was attractive because of the immediate gratification in the display. It also secured the attention of the monarch, who had much leisure time for spectacle. Theatrical pageantry required both quick conceptual sketches and limited construction drawings. Unlike a static monumental structure, a theater set design was compelled to convey the emotion of the music or narrative being performed. This required more emotional sketches.
These architects’ collaborations with playwrights necessitated a visual communication of intention. The spectacular illusions of the stage affected drawing style and encouraged a more expressive sentiment, very different than descriptive exterior elevations.
During this period, baroque painting was experiencing techniques in archaeological illusion, displayed later in the work of Gian Battista Piranesi. Ruined landscapes and architectural fantasy found a pinnacle in sixteenth century Rome and in seventeenth century Venice with artists such as Canaletto. Veduta, the intentionally deformed views of real places, and capriccio, the mingling of real and imaginary places, provided themes for a movement in painting (Millon, 1999). Rudolf Wittkower writes that, in the Renaissance, drawing was a method of analysis and observation, and that (especially in painting) it was a pretext to a finished work of art. But in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries some artists left their paintings in unfinished states resembling sketches (Wittkower, 1980).
Baroque architects continued to view sketching as a means to an end, for communication, evaluation, or design. Giorgio Vasari writes that, at least in the case of painters, their first sketches exuded a ‘fire of inspiration’ that lost their freshness when fully rendered (Wittkower, 1980, p. 367). For baroque architects, there is no doubt that sketches were a generally accepted technique of the design process. The baroque period throughout Europe saw the extensive use of models, in much the same way that they were used in the Renaissance, for both design and presentation. Many of these extremely large models have been preserved, and numerous examples were painted and included elaborate, detailed interiors. Models may have been more understandable for laypersons, while sketches remained a language of the artistic and architectural professions – a sort of private dialogue (Millon, 1999). Although the Renaissance architect Filarete recommended in his treatise, that architects should sketch in the presence of their clients, the practice may have been limited (Filarete, 1965).
Gianlorenzo Bernini, as an interesting example, was a professional who successfully integrated sculpture and architecture, since not all baroque architects received training in secondary skills such as sculpture or painting. During this period, apprenticeships were a common method for architects to gain experience with some of these shops, specializing in architecture rather than various visual arts. Paper was continually more plentiful, evidenced by Johann Gutenberg's printed bible in 1456. The baroque historian Henry Millon explains that visual imagery was required to express certain emotions or conceptual intentions: ‘Bernini's father before him had held that in drawing up a plan a good architect must always try to provide it with real meaning (significato vero), or an allusion to something exceptional, whether that something was drawn from reality or from the imagination’ (Millon, 1961, p. 410).
The political climate, attitudes, and construction practices of the time influenced and affected the design processes and representational techniques of baroque architects. Many of the architects’ drawings that survive were those of large buildings projects. They represent prestigious architects, members of a royal court or maintaining the trust of wealthy patrons. Several of them succeeded in reaching a position of status and prominence. These architects fraternized with politicians and ruling monarchy and in the case of France and the papal families in Italy, as members of royal courts. With this accessibility they were able to promote their skills and talents.
Presentation drawings became necessary instruments, persuading with seductive illusion, describing the intention of an architectural proposal. Drawings were a way to obtain a client's approval and funding. They furthered the architect's image as a magician, able to conjure up the majesty and splendor so important to their clients’ purposes. They provoked dialogue, allowing the architect and client to speak a visual language. For example, the sketch by Carlo Fontana suggests two alternatives to engage the client in decision-making. The educated aristocracy could have formulated opinions on the future building, or at the very least desired knowledge of the proposed building's concepts and intentions.
Construction drawings, although probably not similar to those used today, were plentiful enough to accommodate large-scale projects, with their extensive interior ornamentation, individual articulation of traditional elements, and numerous details. Baroque building allowed for inventiveness – it required elaborate spatial organizations in plan, calculations of complex geometries, and the integration of sculpture with building components. Sketches were necessary to conceive of and work out these designs. Substantially more complex architectural solutions, such as Christopher Wren's extended three-part dome for St. Paul's Cathedral, dictated exploration through both drawings and sketches (Hersey, 2000). As demonstrated by Ange-Jacques Gabriel, coordination of a large staff of draughtsmen required extensive visual communication. Baroque architects continued to utilize models to both comprehend an intended solution and communicate form to others. These three-dimensional constructions were often highly detailed, even describing interior surface ornamentation as in the case of Wren.
A majority of the architects from this period acquired their skills and training as apprentices under the direction of established architects. With this experience, they were educated in established methods of representing buildings; plan, section, elevation, and perspective. A number of these architects obtained additional experience in the spectacle of theater design, where a sketch would suffice for construction of a set or translated into a costume's pattern. They viewed the sketch as less precious or definitive, allowing alterations and corrections to become a part of their process. Not all having emerged from a workshop tradition, they were yet able to develop the skills necessary for a design dialogue.
MEDIA
The materials trusted for sketching were quite similar to those employed in the Renaissance. The growing availability of paper decreased the physical value of the sketch, thus, the sketches could be rejected and restarted more readily. Graphite was substantially more prevalent, especially after 1662 when it reached mass production in Nuremberg as a form of pencil. Encased in a wooden holder, the medium substantially gained in popularity because of its convenience. Able to be applied directly to paper the pencil did not necessitate a prepared surface as silverpoint required. Eventually the graphite was mixed with clay and mechanically produced (Petroski, 1990). Comparable in softness to chalk, graphite moved smoothly across the surface of the paper. Graphite was also somewhat erasable, in that the distinct lines could be rubbed off or even intentionally smudged for shading.
Many baroque architects invariably chose to sketch with quill pen and ink. A substantially darker line (causing greater contrast), readability, and its smooth flow were most likely the reasons for this medium's popularity. Ink was permanent, which may have assisted architects to conclude design solutions. In most cases, though, these architects relied upon a variety of media. One medium could be corrected with another to differentiate an idea from a subsequent thought. A first draft could be laid out in graphite and alternatives displayed over the top in another medium. Inigo Jones, in the middle seventeenth century, had scored the paper with guidelines so as not to be distracted by their prominence, or perhaps because he realized the difficulties with erasure. François Mansart and Bernini, for example, sketched moving quickly between images, not bothering to stop and erase; they recognized the page of sketches was an entirely personal dialogue. It could be speculated they needed to reference earlier images and they did not care if the sketches intersected or overlapped. Juvarra, for example, employed ink wash in such a way that the brush became another sketching tool, rather than primarily a device to render tone and value. With the brush they could vary line thickness or weight from beginning to end of a single stroke, achieving more expressive images. Piranesi also found etching to be an accommodating medium for expression, determining it could be continually reworked and widely distributed throughout the printing process. This allowed him more easily to disseminate his theoretical propositions.
The seventeenth century witnessed the development of instruments of exact measurement, particularly those necessary for exploration in astronomy and navigation, as well as military engineering and land surveying. The documentation required for these endeavors spawned the emergence of technical drawing. Tools in common use by the 1600s were scale measures, protractors, compasses, set squares, and parallel rules. These tools were necessary for the accuracy required of orthogonal drawings (plan, section, and elevation). Fairly crude ruling pens had been available previous to the seventeenth century, when composite metals were used to make drawing tools. The non-corrosive metal instruments were also substantially more precise. Important for draughting a finished solution these implements often assisted the architect while sketching.
The architects of the baroque period found sketches served their design processes in various capacities, from the search for form to presentation and evaluation with a client. These sketches show increasing confidence in the media, evidenced by a substantial number of examples that have been preserved. Sketches also gained a wider acceptance, being used for such purposes as diagramming, calculating geometries and communicating to draughtsmen.
Mansart, François (1598–1666)
Alterations to the Hôtel de la Bazinière on the Quai Malaquais, 1653–1658, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Bib. Nat. Est., Hd 207a, p.6, 37 × 27.3 cm, Brown ink, black and red chalk
Although François Mansart preserved classical intentions using Italian Renaissance architects as models, his architecture work was tempered by the contemporary French culture of the seventeenth century. It is known that he owned a copy of Vitruvius' book and some examples of design by Vignola. His architecture was speaking a language of classicism, although there are no definitive records that he ever visited Italy.
Mansart was born in Paris in 1598 into a family of artisans; his father was a master carpenter. Most likely because of the death of his father when he was young, Mansart studied architecture with his brother-in-law Germain Gaultier. In 1623, at a young age, Mansart was working on his first architectural project for the façade of the Church of the Feuillants in Paris.
In 1626, he was commissioned to design the Château of Balleroy near Bayeu, and in 1635 he was given the large project to rebuild Château at Blois, the Orléans Wing. But it is the Château de Maisons-Laffitte in 1642 which may be viewed as the best example of his architectural style. This building features a high attic, distinctive of the French architecture of the time, and although it is named the Mansart roof he was not the first to use it. This building has a U shape plan, with a façade of pilasters and proportionally tall windows. The incorporation of small round windows, and an interior with ceiling carvings and moldings, expresses a less restrained interpretation of classicism.
This dense page of sketches (Figure 2.1) displays the design and study techniques used by Mansart to renovate a room in the Hôtel de la Bazinière. Mansart was commissioned to improve the town house by the son of Macé Bertrand de la Bazinière in 1653. The historians Allan Braham and Peter Smith, in their book on Mansart, mention contracts from the period, demonstrating that Mansart added two staircases and a cabinet attached to the garden side of the building (1973). This page demonstrates an interior elevation with a corresponding plan placed in the center. The large section is not a ruled drawing, but carefully delineated freehand. Around and on top of these drawings are many small study sketches and notes.
It would be logical to assume, from looking at this image, that Mansart first outlined the narrow wing of the house he was to alter and then proceeded to draw his modifications over the original image. The proposed cabinet has been attached to the left side of the room. The alternative details and capitals are presented at a smaller scale, and tiny sections can be viewed to the bottom right. The most compelling and revealing aspect of this sketch indicates that Mansart was sketching all of the alternatives on one page so as to continually reference the main image. It acted as a baseline or constant, the outside limits from which to respond.
This page becomes interesting as a device for decision-making. Mansart seems to have been evaluating and eliminating certain variations. Even though this sketch was partially rendered in chalk he did not bother to erase. Instead, he used strong diagonal lines to eliminate certain images that he no longer felt were valid. Many of the column capitals were only partially represented as he abandoned them to contemplate a new thought. A brief plan shows many changes and notes for the dimensioning of the space. As a renovation, certain constraints were placed on the solutions for his design. Again, the large outline/drawing may have acted as a boundary to his thinking, one that was easy to manipulate, alter, and continually reference throughout the process.
Borromini, Francesco (1599–1667)
Rome, Collegio di Propaganda Fide, studies for front windows, 1662, Albertina, Az Rom 913, 18.3 × 26.1 cm, Graphite on paper (grafite tenera su carta da scrivere di discreta resistenza; filigrana: variante di quella al n. 6088in Briquet II)
Numerous of Francesco Borromini's design sketches carry the expression and passion for architecture that can be found in his built work. Displaying fluid lines and definitive vertical emphasis, his admirers continually stress his knowledge of Vitruvius and his foundation in classical architecture. He implemented classical elements, but in new combinations, employing dramatic lighting effects and integrating painting, sculpture, and architecture as a unified whole (Blunt, 1979).
The son of architect Giovanni Domenico Castelli, he was born at Bissone near Lake Lugano in 1599, acquiring the name Borromini later in life. Being related to Carlo Maderno, he found work carving coats of arms, festoons, decorative putti, and balustrades at St. Peter's (Wittkower, 1980). Subsequently, Maderno employed him as a draughtsman and, achieving some freedom of design during Bernini's directorship at St. Peter's, he started his architectural career. He brought with him skills as a builder and craftsman to design the monastery of S. Carlo alle Quattro Fontane. The façade consists of three concave bays separated from the rest of the corner site. The church displays an oval plan with four indented corners creating an interior undulating pattern of columns (Millon, 1961). The historian George Hersey suggests that it evokes a mannerist/baroque use of geometry, elongating and distorting circles to become ovals and ellipses (Hersey, 2000). Several of his other projects include Palazzo della Sapienza (1642–1662), Propaganda Fide (1647–1662), St. Agnese in Piazza Navona (1652–1657), St. John Lateran, and Church of S. Ivo alla Sapienza.
The many sketches from the collection of Borromini in the Albertina are primarily rendered in graphite. Most show the heavy usage that could be expected from drawings that are pondered. Demonstrating their use for contemplation over long periods of time, the graphite has been smeared and often partially erased. The compass seems to have been his constant companion, as the sketches are riddled with holes.
This early conceptual sketch (Figure 2.2) for the Collegio della Progaganda Fide exemplifies many of these traits. The page suggests that he was lost in thought, moving easily across the sheet between plans, elevations, and calculations. He tried several variations of a columned entrance, in a process of constant refinement. The smeared graphite designates the trial quality of this sketch page; it expresses how he participated with the sketches, just as he did with his architecture. He was not afraid to keep working on the same page even if it became dirty and smeared.
Borromini likely chose graphite because it was fast, expressive, and changeable. In contrast, pen and ink may have been too permanent, belabored, and slow (dipping the pen); it was a medium less erasable. These sketches are not careless, but rather deliberate in concentration. The palimpset, of his thinking shows how he was constantly reacting to an existing line with a new one. Reconsidered solutions can be seen in the darker alternatives for an entrance. Each time he decided on a better solution, Borromini tried definitively to emphasize it with a heavier lineweight. The reworking of the sketch and the rough texture of the paper stemming from erasure also shows in the darker marks around the altered areas.
From the liveliness of his sketches, one can imagine the passion he gave to his art. For him, the sketches were personal conversations and he did not care how they looked. He was absorbed in the dialogue of the image.
Webb, John (1611–1672)
Pavilion addition sketch, RIBA, JOI, WEJ [166], 20 × 32.5 cm, Pen and brown ink
John Webb's early architectural experience began when he left Merchant Taylor's School in 1628 and went to study/work with Inigo Jones at the time of the rebuilding of old St. Paul's (Bold, 1989). During the period of restoration Webb turned his attention to domestic architecture, finding commissions from both royalists and members of parliament. He designed Belvoir Castle in Leicestershire in 1655, Gunnersbury House in the late 1650s and Amesbury Abbey (Bold, 1989). Despite his years of experience, Webb was not awarded the position of Surveyor-General of the Office of the Works, but instead was presented with commissions for two very important buildings for the monarchy: Somerset House, 1661, for the Queen Mother and a new Royal Place at Greenwich, 1664 (Worsley, 1995). One of his final projects was a royal palace for Charles II at Greenwich. In this building Webb was able to refine his relationship to classical baroque with elements such as rusticated windows and walls.
Although Webb likely never traveled to the continent like his predecessors, he was educated in European architecture through treatises, engravings, and pattern books. Interestingly, his influence is also at least partially a legacy of drawings. When Inigo Jones died he left his books and drawings to Webb as well as a collection of Palladio's drawings.
The drawings and treatises in Webb's possession became part of his personal repertoire, as he was able to analyze their contents as they pertained to antiquity. This meant he was an architect who approached classicism not from firsthand archeological experience but from the ideal work of Vitruvius, Palladio, Jones, and to some extent Scamozzi. Giles Worsley writes that Webb studied Vitruvius and drew reconstructions of Roman antiquity, which ‘could have been practical exercises to assist Webb to establish appropriate classical solutions to modern building types’ (1995, p. 47).
This sketch by Webb (Figure 2.3) now in the collection of the RIBA, shows a plan and elevation delineated primarily with single lines. The simple organization consists of a central block and four hesitantly connected square ‘wings,’ supposedly an early proposal for the Queen's House at Greenwich (Harris, 1982; Bold, 1989). Webb seems able to comprehend the proportions, spatial relationships, and overall perception of this project using very few lines. However brief, the sketch appears not to be a search for form but a contemplative exploration, an assembly of building parts. Completed with pen and ink, this sketch was drawn in a minimal amount of time and with little concern for its appearance. The single weight lines were not meant to communicate construction but rather provide an outline of spatial relationships. The elevation's direct relationship to the plan shows that he was thinking about both simultaneously. With remarkably good proportions, it reveals elements distinctive of Webb's former constructions, forms from his palette or repertoire.
Relying on his memory of successful spaces he was able to view the organization in diagram form. The plan organization resembles Gunnersbury House, consisting of a square with wide bisecting hall-ways. The center portico elevation mimics the four-columned porch on Amesbury Abbey, with its rusticated base and heavy band between the first floor and the second. The sketch also displays similar vertical proportions to the façade at Amesbury Abbey, complete with cupola. A large forecourt organizationally connects this project to the finished Greenwich Palace. Similarly, in the design of Belvoir Castle, Webb configures the center block as an elongated rectangle, where the corners are suites of rooms consisting of four slightly attached pods.
Bernini, Gianlorenzo (1598–1680)
Sketch for the Fountain of Four Rivers, 1646–1647, Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig 7907r, 32.9 × 35 cm, Pen and ink, black chalk
Gianlorenzo Bernini was born in Naples in 1598. His father was a Florentine sculptor, and from an early age he showed creative talent. It was in Rome that Bernini lived, and completed most of his architectural and sculptural projects, until his death in 1680. His buildings represent the fluid and expressive qualities of the Baroque while revealing his interest in sculpture and theatrical design. Throughout his career, he received numerous projects for the Church, beginning with a commission for Cardinal Scipione Borghese. Although Bernini's beginnings were distinctly classical, the Baldachin for St. Peter's and his later churches such as St. Andrea al Quirinale describe the movement effects of the baroque. The elliptical piazza in front of St. Peter's is one of his most celebrated projects.
The use of preparatory drawings and sketches were typical of Bernini's design process (Wittkower, 1997). He employed preliminary sketches for creative inspiration. He did not believe in overworking a sketch, but instead moved to an empty space on the page to try out new thoughts. They became increasingly precise as he arrived at a solution; as they remained in the realm of exploration, of conceptual beginnings (Lavin, 1981).
This page of sketches is distinctive of Bernini's style and process. The Fountain of Four Rivers in Piazza Navona in Rome (Figure 2.4) is well known and one that has been discussed by historians Rudolf Wittkower and Irving Lavin. This sketch displays an important relationship between the architect/experienced sculptor who was concerned with the assembly of the stone blocks for carving, and the artist who was compelled to capture form on the surface of stone.
Pope Innocent X Pamphili, although first working with Borromini, accepted a design for the fountain in 1647 from Bernini. The fountain was to be located in front of St. Agnes and utilize an obelisk transported from the Circus of Maxentius. This sketch, from 1646–1647, shows images distributed densely across the page. Many are iterations for a sculptural base, showing the figures in abstract form. One can imagine Bernini drawing on the page left to right, since the sketches to the right appear more fully developed. The figures envisioned for the sculptural base all have the same theme, as Bernini was not searching for form, but refining his ideas. These (approximately) ten sketches seem to be expressing similar perspective views, as the diagonal opening in the center moves from bottom left to top right in each alternative. Some seem relatively unfinished as he moved on to the next iteration. Most of the figures were studied in profile and drawn abstractly, with heads represented only as circles, so that Bernini could visualize the composition using fast strokes combined with shading.
The most unique and interesting aspect of the page concerns the alternatives for the sculptural figures interspersed with sketches exploring possibilities of assembly and construction. Bernini was studying the connection between the obelisk and its base and considering how the plinth would be perceived. The fact that Bernini was both an architect and a sculptor has been revealed in the way he explored the stacking of the blocks, either carved out or balanced. He was discovering how the sculptural form could best be achieved, while accounting for ways to span the grotto-like opening in the center of the fountain.
Bernini was seeking the impressions of light and dark composing the sculptural form. The sketches show volume and massing rather than specifics, evoking the fluid movement of the sculpture so distinctive of their author's baroque style. The technique suggests how the fountain might look with water flowing over, or from, it. The expressive techniques of this sketch display Bernini's thinking, as he explored both the internal structure and the external carving.
Hardouin-Mansart, Jules (1646–1708)
Chateau de Clagny, niche sketch, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, B.N. Estampes Va 360 8, 12.9 × 15.3 cm, Dessin a la sanguine
As conferred Royal Architect in 1675, Premier Architect in 1685, and Superintendent of Buildings from 1699 until his death in 1708, Jules Hardouin-Mansart defined the style of architecture in the reign of King Louis XIV. Being the king's primary architect, he (along with a large staff of architects), perpetuated the pageantry and grandiosity of the royal court at a time when the monarchy was building with unprecedented magnitude. His buildings included work on Versailles in 1671, along with other châteaux and projects in the city of Paris such as townhouses, churches, and city squares.
Born in 1646, Hardouin-Mansart was a great nephew of the famous architect François Mansart. He started in the king's employ with garden projects around Versailles and proceeded to remodel the château in 1678. The most celebrated of his projects at Versailles is the Hall of Mirrors. Honoring Louis XIV's accomplishments, the hall contains mirrors juxtaposed with arched windows opposite and a decorated vaulted ceiling, all of which essentially transformed the old royal apartments with themed architectural decoration. These illusionary effects, although their elements are classical, typify the grandeur of the French classical baroque. Several of his other renowned projects include: the Hôtel des Invalides with Libéral Bruant, Château du Val in St. Germain and other urban scale projects, Place des Victoires, and Place Vendôme with both of the last two located in Paris (Ward, 1926: Briggs, 1967; Van Vynckt, 1993).
On this page (Figure 2.5) is a drawing of a niche for the Château in Clagney for Madame de Montespan, the mistress of Louis XIV. This dwelling was crucial to Hardouin-Mansart's practice since it afforded him an introduction to the king. The drawing appears carefully ruled with limited detail. Although ruled with straight lines, it fulfills the definition of ‘sketch’ as an outline, and also preparatory to something else.
The niche has been presented in elevation with a small half plan seen below. To the right, tight to the margin, has been displayed a section identified as a ‘B,’ providing an enlargement of the pedestal which is possibly holding a sculptured figure. Much of the ornament is sketched freehand, such as the two Corinthian pilasters that flank the niche, and likewise the panel above. Perhaps the image was used to sketch changes and details onto an unfinished elevation, much as an architect today would ‘redline’ a construction document. In this way, it may have served Hardouin-Mansart as a medium to think through a detail implementing the ruled elevation as a basis for changes. The niche could have been built from the drawing, but the ornament of the capitals and the figures are incomplete thoughts and would need another drawing to explain them fully. Also apparent is the formality of the sketch by labeling the refined piece as ‘B,’ Hardouin-Mansart was perhaps suggesting that the image be transferred to someone else for construction implementation or redrawing.
Hardouin-Mansart may have indeed been questioning the ability of an elevation to relate the whole story he needed to convey. He was certainly expressing the limits of the drawing by adding freehand shading lines to describe the depth of the niche.
For the architects of the classical baroque, architecture depended on a three-dimensional interpretation of wall using ornament. This page does not describe a section view which might have been a more important drawing to explain his thoughts to himself or others. With the employment of orthographic techniques such as elevation (which successfully facilitated Renaissance architecture), Hardouin-Mansart may have been reevaluating them as a way to achieve his goals.
Fontana, Carlo (1638–1714)
Design for façade of Santi Faustino e Giovita, 1652–1714, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 61.658.39 Neg. 271466, 271467, 57.4 × 37.2 cm, Sepia, gray wash and graphite
This page exhibits a double image representing the design process of the late high baroque architect Carlo Fontana. Although appearing as finished drawings, they reveal Fontana's habit to explore many iterations of a given design. These images convey a temporary or preliminary attitude rendering them a form of sketch. Since he viewed them as a series of alternatives, they suggest that it was his intention to eventually compare them in a process of decision-making.
Fontana was born near Como, Italy. Early in his life he moved to Rome, approximately 1650, and began work in Pietro da Cortona's workshop. Following that initial exposure to architecture, he was employed by Gianlorenzo Bernini for nearly a decade, participating in the design of the piazza in front of St. Peter's, and of Scala Regia. Although strongly influenced by Bernini as a young architect, Fontana also worked directly with Carlo Rainaldi on several projects. One which best reveals these architectural influences was the façade of S. Marcello al Corso (1682–1683).
Commissioned by both the papacy and private patrons, examples of Fontana's projects include: his first project with full responsibility, the church of S. Biagio Campitelli; a commission by Queen Christina of Sweden for the Teatro Tor di Nona and remodeling projects; Santa Maria in Trastevere and San Spirito dei Napolitani. In contemplating Fontana's legacy, Rudolf Wittkower theorized that Fontana led a reinterpretation of classicism, proposing that his architecture may have been anticipating neoclassicism (1958).
Demonstrated here (Figure 2.6) are two iterations of a decorative façade. The overall impression of the technique feels finished and ruled, although some of the upper panels have been left blank or include freehand sculptures. These unfinished panels suggest the ‘in-process’ qualities that make it comparable to a sketch. Fontana has provided two equally well-detailed alternatives for the decorative doorway. The page has been rendered with one option, with a slice cut through the paper above the door to secure a tabbed flap of an alternative solution. The additional flap resembles the dimensions of the door and lifts to open, as an interesting analogy to a door. When closed, the solution beneath is completely obscured. These two options have opposing themes; one rectilinear, and the other mimicking the arched niche above the architrave.
To assist with the interpretation of this sketch, numerous drawings by Fontana exist which demonstrate his prolific practice. In their catalogue, Braham and Hager write: ‘The facility of the courtier, his wish to please and his willingness to compromise are especially apparent in Fontana's drawings; they show how he was capable of producing, with little apparent effort, any number of different designs in the hope of satisfying his patrons’ (Braham and Hager, 1977, p. 19). For example, fourteen studies in the archive at Windsor show alternatives for the decoration of the piers at St. Peter's, with each proposal having been studied in a separate vignette.
The question arises: what intention or thought process compelled Fontana to add the paper door to this façade? If the extra door was a later inspiration, he could have either cut out and patched the previous, or glued the new solution over the old. He could have also redrawn the façade with the new configuration, as he had done previously. Perhaps Fontana himself had difficulties making decisions, or, as a diplomatic move, was trying to elicit some participation from his client. By replacing only the door, he was limiting the options. Although architects often sketch many visual possibilities for their own study, it seems more likely that this façade was meant for presentation. Otherwise, he would not have needed to attach the door to keep it from being lost.
Fischer von Erlach, Johann Bernhard (1656–1723)
Le Grunst Palace Royal sketches, Albertina, Inv. 26392 fol. 26, Codex Montenuovo, Approx. 8 × 12 in., Pencil and ink on paper
Classically educated Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, architect for the affluent Austrian monarchy, transformed the baroque into the more ornate rococo. Fischer von Erlach was born in Graz, Austria. As a young man he studied in Italy for almost a decade. There he worked under Phillipp Schor and discovered the writings of Vitruvius and other Renaissance architects. While studying the art of metals with G. F. Travani, he met the Jesuit Athanasius Kircher, stimulating a fascination with the archaeology of Egyptian artifacts. Returning to Vienna in 1678 – a time of prosperity and power for Austria – he was prepared to begin his career with the combined skills of an architect, sculptor, medallist, archeologist, and theorist. He joined the royal court in 1694, beginning a long relationship with both Joseph I and Charles VI. In 1705 Fischer von Erlach was appointed Chief Imperial Inspector of royal building (ensuring him royal commissions), a position he held the remainder of his life. His extensive travels in the early 1700s most likely prompted his writing of Entwurf einer Historischen Architektur, published in 1712 (Briggs, 1967; Benevolo, 1978; Millon, 1961).
Combining ancient lessons with the contemporary work of Italian baroque architecture, Fischer von Erlach's most celebrated project was Karlskirche in Vienna, 1715–1733. The lower portion of the façade evokes a classical theme, where he placed columns and a pediment resembling the Pantheon. Fischer von Erlach's other built work includes: Schönbrunn Palace, Kollegienkirche, Dreifaltkeitskirche, and the Frain Palace in Moravia for Johann Michael II.
From viewing the extensive collection of existing drawings and sketches by Fischer von Erlach a few general conclusions can be ascertained. His freehand sketches exhibit a light touch where the abstraction of the forms prevents lines from intersecting. They give the impression that he was holding the drawing media extremely loosely, as if it was independent of his hand.
The single line sketches (Figure 2.7) include details, elevations, and three-dimensional images. They are crowded on the page and seem to fill every available space. Drawn with both graphite and ink, it is probable that he moved easily between the two media. The subject matter of the page makes it remarkable. The axonometric and perspective sketches explore variations for the design of a very large project, seen from a bird's-eye view. The words written across the top in script read Le Grunst Palace Royal July. One can see vast walled gardens connected to a building complex. Constructed in perspective, one variation demonstrates a rectangular study, while the unfinished example in the foreground consists of an elliptical arcade. The page has been strewn with beginnings of ponds, follies and sculptural monuments.
The large scale of the projects required that Fischer von Erlach sketch quite small; it would seem that his technique grew out of necessity. An architect of Palaces, at some point in his design process he needed to envision each project as a unified whole. Viewing the geometries and relationships of the entire project answered questions pertaining to the composite vision. It has been recorded that Fischer von Erlach traveled to the Prussian court of Frederick I with a proposal for an extravagant palace (Van Vynckt, 1993). Although unable to gain a commission, a project of that size mandated tremendous vision and design exploration. Whether or not this sketch represents the beginning thoughts for this palace, the disparate alternatives seem to be conceived without a definitive site or program. They suggest a search for form in the manner of a fantasy, an attempt to entice or persuade. They could express the first search for a theme before a site was selected or surveyed. Typical of the baroque, controlling nature through parterres and walled courts, the site may actually have had the least influence on the design.
Wren, Christopher (1632–1723)
Studies of a dome with four-lobed drum, Guildhall Library Deposit, Downes 92, 31.4 × 19.4cm, Pen and ink
Christopher Wren's education and influences stemmed from mathematical and scientific beginnings, rather than an architectural or artistic apprenticeship. He received a classical education at Westminster School and studied at Wadham College, Oxford, where he obtained experience in anatomy, mathematics, and astronomy. In 1665–1666 he traveled to France, but beyond this experience, his knowledge of the rules of classical design was gleaned from architectural treatises such as Vitruvius, and by observing built work by architects such as Inigo Jones.
After the plague and the Great Fire, Charles II initiated a rebuilding program. Wren was able to participate in this incredible opportunity to reshape the city of London. He accepted the position of Surveyor General of the King's Works in 1669 and became the Commissioner for Building Fifty New Churches in the city, and thus built a remarkable number of buildings in his long life. His relationship to the monarchy afforded him commissions for building Whitehall Palace, Kensington Palace, Hampton Court Palace, Middlesex, and the Royal Naval Hospital, Greenwich. He also designed nearly every church built between 1670 and 1700 in London. Among the most notable were St. Stephen Walbrook, Christ Church Newgate Street, St. Andrew Holborn, and, of course, St. Paul's Cathedral.
Wren's scientific background gave him a way to approach beauty by considering both structure and form. His skills in constructing the representative media of models and mechanisms precipitated his interest in architecture (Summerson, 1953; Downes, 1982). In 1666 he undertook proposals for the renovation of St. Paul's and completed drawings featuring a cone-shaped dome. The Great Fire in that same year changed the assignment to a rebuilding project. The dome that Wren favored was classical in form, towering over the crossing of the Latin cross plan. Due to Wren's interest in mathematics and particularly geometry, the dome was built as a set of three domes, the inner two being catenoids (Hersey, 2000).
Figure 2.8, presumably an early study of St. Paul's, features a hemispherical dome placed on a split sketch, displaying both the interior and exterior of the cathedral. Wren was using this sketch to think through construction, since it appears that the detail at the left received the most attention and was also studied in plan below. He seems focused on the wall that conceals the buttresses which support the inner dome and the construction of semi-circular buttressing structures (Fürst, 1956). By studying this configuration in section, Wren was able to understand the ramifications to both the interior and exterior.
This sketch shows only one internal dome, and it has been speculated by Viktor Fürst that this image was an early study, before the heightening of the dome was considered (1956). Although a section through the dome, Wren employs dashed lines for the inner structure. The relationship between inside and outside was very important to Wren. Since he needed to reconcile the interior effect with the structure, the combination of the three domes preserved the perspective illusion of height he was trying to achieve (Hersey, 2000). Wren the mathematician/geometer/astronomer was creating an optical system, much like microscopes and telescopes of scientific discovery. If sketches can be indicators of architectural intention, then this image may represent how he used media to understand design relationships. The dome, being of an unusual shape for London at this period, required Wren to thoroughly investigate its form and structure in various types of drawings before construction.
Juvarra, Filippo (1687–1736)
Stage scenery design for Ottoboni for his theater in the Cancellaria Palace, 1708–1712, V&A Picture Library, Museum #8426 (20); Neg. #66409, 20 × 27cm, Pen and ink and wash on paper
Filippo Juvarra's architecture reflects the late baroque period in Europe. Highly prolific, he built many palaces and grand churches, mostly in and around Turin. Early in his career, he found fame as a set designer, working for Cardinal Ottoboni on the theater for the Cancelleria. As a result of this experience, Rudolf Wittkower suggests that Juvarra's architecture continually utilized the resourceful theatrics of a stage designer (1980). Possibly influenced by the German and Austrian rococo currents in Europe, his work combines the flamboyant rococo style with contrasting Italian classical elements.
Juvarra was born in Messina to a family of silversmiths. His architectural training began with a classical education in Rome under Carlo Fontana. After his service to Cardinal Ottoboni, around 1714, he moved to Turin to work for Victor Amadeus of Savoy. He spent the next twenty years in Turin, producing such projects as the grand baroque sanctuary Superga in 1715–1731, the chapel of the Venaria Reale from 1716 to 1721, and palaces such as the Palazzo Madama, Castello di Rivoli, and the nearly French château style palace Stupinigi.
A typical example of Juvarra's drawing style can be found in the volume of drawings made in Rome for the theater at Cancellaria Palace of a baroque set design. This sketch (Figure 2.9) conveys his attitudes about the temporality and illusion of performance, especially baroque theater. It represents architecture that was animated by light and movement, qualities that show vividly in his pen and ink techniques.
This sketch contains busy, vibrating, and modulated lines that fill the page. The pen techniques show that his lines were rendered with great speed. This is noticeable because many lines double back on themselves in Juvarra's effort to draw the lines quickly and in parallel sequence. Besides the multitude of lines, other techniques reinforce the temporal expression of a stage set. The ink wash technique was probably applied after the pen, because in several instances it causes the ink lines to bleed. The wash was intended to render the image more three-dimensional by providing shadows. It enlivens the sketch as it dances with baroque activity. This was partially because the contrast of dark and light evokes the bright directional illumination of stage lighting.
The sketch exhibits the overly decorative style of baroque interiors. In the center stands a pavilion very reminiscent of Bernini's Baldacchino at St. Peter's in Rome. The Baldacchino was a stage for religious ceremony; likewise, the pavilion on the stage acts with central importance for Juvarra. The twisted columns, typical of baroque interiors, also helped to give Juvarra's set the fluid motion of theater.
Juvarra's sketch contains a horizontal ground line that may represent the edge of the stage. Below this edge has been drawn a small plan of the proposed set. The horizontal layers reveal his concern for the blocking of the stage, similar to the way actors position themselves in the space. He was exploring openings for performers to appear and disappear, considering both the illusion and the practicality of how they enter the stage from the wings. On the plan, Juvarra also diagrammed a diagonal view corridor to express the exaggerated perspective of the shallow platform. Looking back to the three-dimensional illusion, the sketch presents the space from a very low perspective point, one that might represent the view of the audience. This adds to the dramatic presentation of the spectacle and also allowed Juvarra to understand the perspective effect from the view of the audience.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
– (1959). 70 Disegni di Francesco Borromini dalle collezioni dell'Albertina di Vienna. Instituto Austriaco di Cultura in Roma, Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe Farnesina.
Beard, G. (1982). The Work of Christopher Wren. John Bartholomew & Son.
Benevolo, L. (1978). The Architecture of the Renaissance. Westview Press.
Blunt, A. (1979). Borromini. Harvard University Press.
Blunt, A. (1981). Art and Architecture in France, 1500–1700. Penguin Books.
Bold, J. (1989). John Webb: Architectural Theory and Practice in the Seventeenth Century. Clarendon Press.
Bourget, P. and Cattaui, G. (1956). Jules Hardouin-Mansart. Éditions Vincent, Fréal.
Braham, A. and Hager, H. (1977). Carlo Fontana: The Drawings at Windsor Castle. A Zwemmer.
Braham, A. and Smith, P. (1973). Francois Mansart, 2 Volumes. A. Zwemmer Ltd.
Brauer, H. and Wittkower, R. (1970). Bernini's Drawings. Collectors Editions.
Briggs, M.S. (1967). Baroque Architecture. Da Capo Press.
Dircks, R. (1923). Sir Christopher Wren, A.D. 1632–1723: Bicentenary Memorial Volume Published Under the Auspices of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Hodder and Stoughton.
Downes, K. (1982). The Architecture of Wren. Universe Books.
Downes, K. (1988). Sir Christopher Wren: The Design of St. Paul's Cathedral. Trefoil Publications.
Filarete translated by Spencer, J.R. (1965). Treatise on Architecture. Yale University Press.
Fleming, J., Honour, H. and Pevsner, N. (1998). The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. Penguin Books.
Fürst, V. (1956). The Architecture of Sir Christopher Wren. Lund Humphries.
Hambly, M. (1988). Drawing Instruments, 1580–1980. Sotheby's Publications/Philip Wilson Publishers.
Harris, J. and Tait, A.A. (1979). Catalogue of the Drawings by Inigo Jones, John Webb and Isaac De Caus at Worchester College Oxford. Clarendon Press.
Harris, J. (1982). The Palladians. Rizzoli.
Hersey, G.L. (2000). Architecture and Geometry in the Age of the Baroque. The University of Chicago Press.
Hutchison, H.F. (1976). Sir Christopher Wren. Victor Gollancz.
Hutter, H. (1968). Drawing: History and Technique. McGraw-Hill.
Jardine, L. (2002). On a Grander Scale. Harper Collins.
Kaufmann, E. (1955). Architecture in the Age of Reason: Baroque and Post-Baroque in England, Italy, and France. Harvard University Press.
Lavin, I. (1981). Drawings by Gianlorenzo Bernini, from the Museum der Bildenen Künste Lipzig, German Democratic Republic. Princeton University Press.
Magnuson, T. (1982). Rome in the Age of Bernini. Almqvist and Wiksell.
Martinelli, V. (1982). Bernini: Drawing. La Nuova Italia.
Millon, H.A. (1961). Baroque and Rococo Architecture. George Braziller.
Millon, H.A. and Lampugnani, V.M. (1994). The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo, the Representation of Architecture. Rizzoli.
Millon, H.A. ed. (1999). The Triumph of the Baroque. Rizzoli.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Baroque Architecture. Harry N. Abrams.
Petroski, H. (1990). The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstances. Knopf.
Pommer, R. (1967). Eighteenth Century Architecture in Piedmont: The Open Structures of Juvarra, Alfieri and Vittone. New York University Press.
Portoghesi, P. (1967). Francesco Borromini. Electa Editrice.
Powell, N. (1959). From Baroque to Rococo. Faber and Faber.
Scribner III, C. (1991). Gianlorenzo Bernini. H.N. Abrams.
Sedlmayr, H. (1956). Johann Bernhard Fischer Von Erlach. Verlag Herold.
Smith, P. (1969). L'Urbanisme de Paris et l'Europe 1600–1680. Thesis.
Soo, L. (1998). Wren's ‘Tracts’ on Architecture and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press.
Summerson, J. (1953). Sir Christopher Wren. The Macmillan Company.
Tinniswood, A. (2001). His Invention So Fertile: A life of Christopher Wren. Oxford University Press.
Trachtenberg, M. and Hyman, I. (1986). Architecture: From Prehistory to Post-Modernism. Abrams.
Turner, J. ed. (1996). The Dictionary of Art. Grove.
Van Vynckt, R. ed. (1993). International Dictionary of Architects and Architecture. St. James Press.
Viale Ferrero, M. (1970). Filippo Juvarra scenografo e architetto teatrale. Benjamin Blom.
Ward, W.H. (1926). The Architecture of the Renaissance in France, Vols 1&2. B.T. Batsford.
Wittkower, R. (1949). Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. Warburg Institute.
Wittkower, R. (1958, 1980). Art and Architecture in Italy 1600 to 1750. Penguin Books.
Wittkower, R. (1997). Bernini, the Sculptor of the Roman Baroque. Phaidon Press.
Worsley, G. (1995). Classical Architecture in Britain. Yale University Press.
Wren, C. (1965). Parentalia; or Memoirs of the Family of Wrens. Gregg Press.