The troubled surface of architecture: John Ruskin, the human body, and external walls.

摘要

The meaning of the architectural surface was thoroughly reconsidered by architects and historians in England and Europe between early and mid-nineteenth century. There were two major trends. The first one was historicist. Ornament and colour was considered important because it represented the origins of architecture. Thesecond approach was rational and tectonic. It suggested that an honest surface had to becreated by emphasizing the structure and by truthfully expressing materials.An unusual response to these debates was John Ruskin’s history of medieval and Renaissance architecture. This was published as The seven lamps of architecture (1849), and the three volume study, The stones of Venice (1851-1853). Ruskin’s writings were difficult to grasp. On the one hand, they were fragmented, historically inaccurate, andlacking in explanatory power. On the other hand, they emphasized surface ornament, without ever indicating its architectural ‘use’. As a result, nineteenth and twentieth century historians and architects declared Ruskin’s writings as being irrelevant to architectural theory and practice.By examining Ruskin’s writings on architecture through the theoretical lens of dress, body, and gender, the thesis demonstrates that he proposed the theory of the adorned “wall veil”.This was a two-part theory. Firstly, architecture was defined by the presence of planar walls. The masonry structure of these walls was masked anddecorated by a seamless dress-like surface, consisting of relief and polychromatic ornaments. Secondly, Ruskin distinguished between the ideal and the corrupt dress. The ideal dress celebrated the spiritual aspects of the body (surface, skin, and colour). The corrupt dress represented the scientific image of the body (depth, bones and muscles, and form). The ideal dress was reflected by the surfaces of medieval buildings, and thecorrupt dress was mirrored by the Renaissance architectural surface.Through these arguments, the thesis makes two major contributions. Firstly, it shows that Ruskin’s views were consistent with the architectural modernism of the twentieth century, in which the free façade and the atectonic surface were key concerns.Secondly, it establishes that Gottfried Semper’s writings were not the sole origin of the debates on dress and architecture. It shows that Ruskin developed a critical theory of dress by synthesizing debates on gender, science, and spirituality. He used this theory to suggest a new approach towards architecture.