Premises for the Resumption of the Discussion of Typology

Author(s): Werner Oechslin

Source: Assemblage, No. 1 (Oct., 1986), pp. 36-53
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171053 .
Accessed: 01/09/2014 00:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Assemblage.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Werner Oechslin
Premises for the
Resumption of the
Discussion of Typology

WernerOechslinis Professorat the The discussion of typology was at the front ranksin archi-
InstitutforGeschichteund Theorieder tectural circles in the 1960s and early 1970s, but has lately
Architektur,ETH, Zurich,and an editor fallen back to the second eschelon. The "post-modern"
of Daidalos (Berlin). now takes all the headlines instead. But this shift in
current events is not at all a matter of replacement. The
increasing r6clame in architecture,on the contrary,has
tended to favor superficialmethods of study, methods for
the most part oriented towardthe outer appearance,the
superficialimage of architecture.The discussion of archi-
tecture at present suffersespecially from these ills, and as a
result a deeper understandingof typology is hardlythink-
able. What survivesof such an understandingoutside of a
restrictedcircle of initiates seems to have long since been
reduced to a trivial conception of typology. The misunder-
standing stubbornlyendures that typology is a matter of
classifyingforms and functions as simply and unequivo-
cally as possible. This banalized understandingof a con-
ception so rich in traditionand so importantin intellectual
history joins forces with what is furtheredand practicedas
"economic functionalism." Standardizationand typification
have long since occurred in this sphere but not towardan
ideal reduction of the architecturaldesign processto its
universalfoundations, not even for the purpose of guaran-
teeing light and air, but ratherfor the sake of increasing
productivity.As we know, this economic functionalism has
led neither to more dwelling space nor to a more livable
environment and, even more than in other partsof the
field, it has been oriented towardthe no longer profoundly
examined laws of production (and of the producers).

37

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EXXX5AES JWgDItVCtS &
AWLih

7-111

~~e~~~u~~~t..t~~~~j~
re~oeiejea~e&.peebewoe*
JoelRdut c hue aLIcm

~jc~: r jL

1
C--t-
-

Frontispiece:J.-N.-L.Durand,
ensemble d'6difices resultants
des divisions du quarrO,du
paralilbogramme,et de leurs
combinaisons avec le cercle.
FromPrcis des
d'architecture lemonsA
donn6es
I'EcolePolytechnique,
vol. 1
(Paris,1802).

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 1

ru.lrdr
...........crer.
c.ala*?m \J r....
•.I•
(Io7.17L it
.. .. ........ T'hisalso indicates how explosive the discussion of typology
!- - is in its possible, and in part alreadyhistoricallyproven,
.......... consequences. It is also clear how greata disserviceis done
Z4:1lii4z;i1LL*AL Z7
by those architecturalcritics who allow this trivialunder-
standing to persistundisturbed.One voice should be cited
17i77 here that has spoken out systematically,polemically, and
~~3, often scornfully against virtuallyevery tendency towardany
. . . .
:44
. . . ............... .....
degree of profunditysince the moment renewed discussion
of "rationalism"began. It is representativeof those "misun-
derstandings"that come of rejectinga deeper analysis.
Bruno Zevi makes the inexcusable mistakeof basing his
evaluation of the concept of typologyon that purely diag-
nostic and trivial form of types determinedentirely by
function. Instead of correctingsuch a one-sided and inap-
propriateuse of the concept of typology, he questions the
1. J.-N.-L.Durand, ensembles usefulness of the concept itself. On the basis of these func-
d'edifices resultants de diverses
combinaisons horizontales et
tionally based uses of the concept, he decides that it is
verticales le carre divise unsatisfactory.What is then proposedin opposition to the
en deux, end'apres possibilityof such theoretical models forgoesany and all
trois, en quatre.
FromPrecisdes leqons, in the reflection on the relationshipbetween artisticindividuality
editions of 1813 and following. and artisticconvention - a matter which has kept the
discussion of the theory of art in suspense for centuries.
Instead, one reads in Zecvistatementsdeliveredwith an un-
surpassablearrogance,such as: art is anti-typological;every
architecturalcreation is necessarilyan individual interpre-
tation by the artist;individual style is more decisive in the
shaping of a work of art than the type. It is as if he wanted
to overlook the impact of the Palladianvilla or of Schin-
kel's Old Museum!

Meanwhile, art history- with respect to the problematic

of typology, especially in the work of A.-C. Quatremdre
de Quincy has attemptedto bring the phenomenon of
the uniqueness of the forms and inventions presentedby
artisticworksinto harmony with the equally undeniable
circumstance of establishedconventions, general lines of
evolutionarydevelopment, and recurringbackgroundcon-
ditions. The difficulty with handling the concept of typol-
ogy is no doubt coupled with a certain intellectual demand
that is too often rejected in the discussion of architecture
today, with a gesture towardthe great number of concrete
problems that need to be treated. A minimum of thinking
effort in fact continues to be a requirement.

38

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Oechslin

All this is enoughto makeit clearthattheremustbe a

renewedconsideration of architecturaltypology,giventhe
misunderstandings and incorrectevaluationsof previous
analyses.For indeedthe all-too-narrow understandingof
typeand typologyhas at timesproduceddisconcerting
results.Efficiencyin architecture,for example,naturally
wasplacedin the foregroundin the ThirdInternational
Conferencefor New Constructionin 1930;even though
SigfriedGiedion,who set this directionas a goal, also
accuratelypointedout that, for all of the elevationof the
problemof massproductionas the imperativeof the mo-
ment, the conceptionsof WalterGropiusand Le Corbusier
had been anticipatedin CharlesFourier'sPhalanstere of
1822. In this samecontext,Gropiusnaturallydid not pose
the questionof rationalityor of "rationalism" as fundamen-
tal, but instead,workingconcretely,limitedthe ideasof
the rationaliststo the fieldof optics:"Whichbuilding
heightsare rationalfor municipalconstructionof mass
publichousing?"Of course(in an epochthathadlong
since takento usinghandbookswithwhichthe costsof
architectural workscouldbe calculated),J.-N.-L. Durand
had alreadymadethe interdependence of architecture
and
economicsa centraltheme, and in the processhad re-
ducedthe relationship betweenarchitecture and produc-
tion to an apparently simplecommondenominator. This
reductionhas addedstrengthto the growingtendencyto
understand his Precisdes leqons(1802)as the manifesto
and the epitomyof a rigid,"typified," and."standardized"
conceptionof architecture.In addition,the historyof ar-
2. Modular/geometricalgener- chitecture,for its part,has gone withouta deeperdiscus-
ation of bodies according to sion of typologyand has writteninstead'the"historyof
late-antique tradition: demon- buildingprojects,"as even the mostrecentworkof Nikolas
stration of single, bi- and tri- Pevsnerstill demonstrates sufficiently.Once again,the
dimensional development, phenomenathemselvestakethe foreground,drivingout
from point to line to surface to fundamentalthinking.
body. Distinction of the specu-
lative and practical(physical)
aspects of the various mathe-
matical definitions. FromJ. Nevertheless,in discussionsof typologyarchitects,particu-
Caramuelde Lobkowitz,Archi- larlyin Italy,havetakenseriouslythe distinctionbetween
tectura civil recta y obliqua ... typeand model, for example,and an attempthasbeen
(Vigevano, 1678). madeto bringtheorybackto the practiceof designin an
intelligentmanner.Distinctpositionshavebeen takenand
defendedand can be individuallycharacterized. The

39

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 1

names of Aldo Rossi, Giorgio Grassi, and Carlo Aymonino

come to mind.

T'he referencepoint for the Italian discussion of typology

has always been Quatremerede Quincy's article "Type,"'
which has since become famous. It was firstpublished in
3. Drawing by Superstudio, 1825 in the third volume of the Encyclopediemerthodique.
1968. G. C. Argan deservesthe credit for taking up and dissemi-
nating this classic definition in his brief and concise article
"Sul concetto di tipologia architettonica"(1962).2 Of
course, a number of differentmisunderstandingswith their
respectiveconsequences can be traced back to Argan'ses-
say. These misunderstandingsconcern the fundamentalap-
praisalof the place and importanceof typology in regardto
design practice and methods, and the even more clouded
issue of the systematicvalue of the type and its importance
to the historical dimension of architecture.

Argan'sessay first appeared, in its original short form, in

the Festschriftfor Hans Sedlmayr. Since his Borromini
studies in the 1930s, Sedlmayr- even if workingfrom
completely differentpremises- had been close to the
problems of architecturaltypology, and was consideredin
the 1930s the chief proponent of the iconology of architec-
ture. It is questionablewhether, or to what degree, Argan
wanted or was able to take into account the discussionsof
structuralismin Germany since the end of the 1920s.
There are no explicit references. Conjectures in the light
of the dedication to Sedlmayrremain unresolved. How-
ever, Argan does undoubtedly relate his effortsat interpre-
tation to the specific state of the then current art historical
discussion of methods. With an eye towardItalian art his-
tory, Argan describeshis analysisas a contributionto the
criticism of idealism. He tries, on the other hand, to draw
a parallel with what was then the most up-to-dateand the
4. 0. M. Ungers, Welfare Island most discussed viewpoint in the discipline:the typologyof
Competition, New York, 1975.
architecture,he says, correspondsfor the most partwith
the iconologyof the pictorial and sculpturalarts. This ex-
plicit parallel places Argan'sessay in that series of works
(Krautheimer,Wittkower,Bandmann)concerned with a
specific iconology of architecture.The publication of the
essay in the Festschriftfor Sedlmayrcan be adequately
explained only in this light.

40

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Oechslin

Geometrical device and the definition of an architecturalgrammar.

ht~..~l~r?;rU
?,l".?h~U*t*""~L~.
T- Fk*a~lirbr trafliJpr
ie
~/ " ~y/~

-- •
r~*bryy ~41?
.....••....•.•-L?
i r
;i~ ti..'i ~iiliI i;:
;!
iP~ ? ":= •!•I
';
i dc•
'..--•.. .
"... .... • 7'•'• ? • "
~cc, ~n ':•"...ii...
'.......
I.aC uc),n~. trl
;i

~---
In the substance of the essay itself, however, a troublesome
rl::`%$jC,, ?s
IrPLn.
contradictionarises. The parallel Argan drawsbetween
?:~i~
t
:I--. i~?. rY'\i !M~-C.Y~
typologyand iconology necessarilyleads him to place the
I 1` h ~
~acnu,
central emphasis of typology on the specific classification
.., ?r~
:t$r of architectonictypes according to functions more or less
~~. ?^?. P. well defined with respectto content. How readilythis can
1,:ie:::)i ~1.....~L...
lead to a lapidaryhistory of "buildingprojects"is shown by
~~~i-?
a
the previouslymentioned study by Pevsner, from which
~F~"1"?~t~t~??cl????i.~K~rlhmfm ar.nsrr&oi~Yl~d
I-"r*ugn;F~*krtr.u~*~^liti?:p~wr~*c ,,n
hPmrb~cecgth:Dtb~~
~Il""-P";?"l(~'~ct~f",~J(~hfC~I~~.~:~;~
the typological problem of generalizationand the relevance
of typology for design all but entirely disappear.Argan does
5. Mathematical bases of 6. Detailed geometrical/ in fact place the distinction between type and model, thor-
architecturalforms. FromV. mathematical representations discussed in Quatremerede Quincy, at the center
Scamozzi, L'idea della architet- of columns and bases. From oughly
tura universale (Venice, 1615; Scamozzi, L'idea della
of his deliberations, but the "art-historical"premise appar-
German edition, 1678). architettura universale. ently keeps his point of view on the design processfrom
becoming any clearer. The removal of the type from the
artisticprocess of mimesis shows - though admittedlynot
I" 12vii
Y
tom wf4 i: r
as radicallyor as clearly as in Zevi - the rejection of the
I

161
ry~J.J. NOW.m,' J
r
correspondingcreative process. The modern historical
f_~l.J~LL~TE;J
.1. i' it i6 ?;I J
-?~ __ .~i C)pTsrfLrrBn krl)rucu
context of art, the parallel with the pictorialand sculptural
O A-C-(; . A "'~
t ;
c s~.ri-? ? r~
Habr.?js,~L~t~;;%c~;?~ab (and imitating)arts has allowed Arganto forgetthat at the
--? ?::. i .....L MI
-;I ~LBD~rP?M? L.9"kC
~??(1P~~dZlrc
Lt3r 1I~LLx~L~fCf~j
,j:
?---:irr?~o
t:i ....1
rc~-Y fWk
T~LL itth-a
p~rrr~~
r-
~I~L**I1Y very beginning of academic discussion at the close of the
?-:,b _9 Pw-r VA" *oy-u
j m :::~d ~4~9. Iw?r~m~
,,,,w~? ~~CC~J
i?i* dncrid sixteenth century, it was the conflict between the different
ii'-~
11,-~~ ~ ~ 406ft :Z ~~9 ~~Pdflx.,j I cmrlgCTr
sh?~
~I~rnrSILl~ii;uun.
Omamcoh.
___,
I?
Crc~i"-WJh,
' -i a~,~ d I~ib"
a 'C"C'"'"D
L3:.C)rr hv~frr d L
arts, with their differentlimitations as they wrestledfor the
AA,"?? z? ;---,I
PYh';:L*.I~Ah
a~fPUZ~~ claim to leadership, that was decisive. At that time, view-
Ad-,.
Vr J?~T A?6k?-L~
'Awt .i .-t~I ~lr
a ~ 1 jk~~a* 1*0 f*
'W~i~q :47
: QI Cuu
rl;c~ir
l~*C
rm'rr dx~r points specific to architecturehad for the most part, as a
?I?I.l.r fl( .~3d- ri.34n
i?u-P~--r~e
~..1
--?---?-
~"~~^~-? -?--i I_^-FCt~L~n o;?Crr4r
..x~
........r )r~r~,;r .~j~llL~b commonly shared principle, alreadydroppedthe mimesis
?il~eb~t I
~CZ~,,
3, n~pe rri
c~r? .~-~??
nc~-, n i*s a*?-
theory from serious consideration. But the theory of archi-
L..~
Irri:::::::::~::j
i; ri~-~:~7)r---??, +aa IL.7M~
I "'----J .~x;LL~SLI~3~~TI.~Crrr~drg+bcr-
i~ru
r5d; tecture has never given up its claim to systematics,at any
i. : 1?r~csrt
1F-~J
=x~
r- i: I j~a i?li*r~ period. Quatremerede Quincy is himself a proof of this
i ~i ~,;M ~?Y~Y-?W)ML
Xi 5
even though, more than any architectbefore him, he
:a dr' n~i X.6Na Ynf~rfact,
OhC;B*rr~n
~1 ?~y?-
gave special attention to the doctrine of imitation. In his
article on typology, however, Argan'seffortsto forge a link
7. Detailed 8. Detailed with the doctrine of mimesis had to lead to confusions.
geometrical/ geometrical/mathe-
mathematical representations matical representations of cor-
of architecturalorders. From nices. FromScamozzi, L'idea Quatremerede Quincy's article is distinguished,as usual,
Scamozzi, L'idea della della architettura universale. by analyticallyprecise wording and the systematicorgani-
architettura universale. zation of the arguments(concept definition, etymological
derivation, explanationof the history of the concept, dis-
cussion of word usage, and, only then, remarksspecific to
architecture).It is no accident that Quatremeirede Quincy
conceived of and planned his Encycloptdiem6thodique:
Architectureas a necessary,field-specificextension of the
great encyclopedia of Diderot and D'Alembert. In keeping

41

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 1

9. J.-N.-L.Durand, d6tails des

ordres en g6neral. Geometrical
llt!!Ltl
1i'.\f S :tS (tltl;tK1SS, !:?; tiEt~iKtit~..
description of cornices in the
usual tradition of Vignola edi-
tions such as Daviler. -l C
.. .. ..
v
.

,,,,

i
.. ..... ............. . ..• • • ,• .

...
:r ". ..
... . . . . / : ---. . ....... ' .. . :-,-:?-
:7
,..-.. .....
..... , .. ....
.. .. .• .. . . . .....
\ ............ . .................... ,:• =. .... ...
..........

Geometry and its use in defining physiognomical types.

/I ~?:
ja?F: 5 9
~-?t~

~i~?.~4
t\i~l ~i"3
X.- c
2" ~C"fu~

II. 4
(;:
i/ r
h
r( '
~ ~
irt V ~~

~9~~
,?~r"
6/hC~J
; ?~Y P~:~lp_;S~

10. Drawing by CharlesLebrun. 11. Drawing by Annibale

Carracci.

42

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Oechslin

with this more general context, the distinction between

type and model bears characteristicsfrom epistemologyand
from general systematicthought - which had been just as
well known and as much discussed in architecturalcircles,
mutatis mutandis, since the early days of Vitruvianismbe-
tween Alberti and Barbaro.This is not the place to reach
12, 13. Examplesof the clas- that far back in history. Nevertheless, it can be said with
sification or the constituent confidence that the definition of the concept of the "type"
elements of the human in Quatrernmre de Quincy is just as unthinkablewithout
physiognomy. FromAlexander
Cozens, Principlesof Beauty
the precedent of the classical philosophical question of
relative to the Human Head form and matter as the discussion of typologyaltogether
(London, 1777-78). would be without the precedingeffortsto integrateEuclid-
ean geometry into architecture.Simply rememberingthe
conceptual correspondencebetween type and figure(typos/
figura) should surely suggest much additionalthought.
By the same token, one also comes upon shortcomingsin
Quatrembrede Quincy's distinction between type and
model. T''ohis perhapsoverly abstractand for the present
too philosophicallyconceived definition of the type, one
can at least contrasta compromisedformula- yielded in
the context of defining architecturaldrawingas an exten-
sion of Vitruvianexegesis - in which the pure geometric
form requires"sensuous"mediation in visible lines (lignes
sensuelles). (Note the distinction between linea speculativa
and linea practica in the figure from Caramuel reproduced
here.) There is very probably,then, a possibilityof graphi-
cally representing"typologies"and of applyingand using
them indirectlyin design. Here Quatremrrede Quincy re-
veals his Platonic side! He was no doubt thoroughlyaware
of the schematics customarilyused at the time - half-
abstract,symbolic formulas(almost in a plan de masse).
14. Drawing by Friedrich 15. Drawing by Friedrich Apparently,he did not want to departfrom his main dis-
Weinbrenner. Weinbrenner. tinction to go into these "transitionalforms"in his article,
which was aimed at a systematicattack. To put it differ-
ently, that Quatremenre de Quincy foregoesan analysis of
the existing practicalequivalents of typologyof his day is
accounted for by the decidedly theoreticalorientationof
the Encyclopediemethodique.

In this light, Argan'sattempt to limit the distinction be-

tween type and model all too exclusively to architectonic
realities (which occurs predominantlyagainstthe previ-

43

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 1

ously mentioned backgroundof assigningfunction and

content) seems a two-fold obfuscation. Quatremerede
Quincy always kept the two viewpointsclearly separated.
And for just this reason, in a second part near the end of
his article (not sufficiently consideredby Argan), he took
up the discussion of contingency and conventionality,
through which the embedding of the type in historical re-
ality and in a specific time inevitablyoccurs. If this second
part- which comes astonishinglyclose to a hermeneuti-
cal point of view - of Quatremerede Quincy's definition
had been sufficientlyheeded, the discussion of typology
could not have been posed against artisticindividuality
and against historicity,but would have had to have been
conceived of as a regulativeprinciple enmeshed in history
and context.
IF 1 R E N Z
Now it is also true, however, that in Italiandiscussions of
_8 78 typology, led chiefly by architects, such positions have
been workedout, in part independently.And as a result, it
is precisely in these discussions (specificallywithin the so-
called rationalisttradition)that historyas a problemhas
been rediscovered,and in a much more clearly refined
way than postmodernismis able to manage, relying as it
does on a superficialconception of mimesis, as invoked by
Argan, or on mere imitation.

For exactly this reason, it is appropriateand necessaryto

returnto Quatrembrede Quincy's discussion of typologyin
??-~ -i : its full scope, even if this can not be done exhaustivelyin
this essay. A few remarkswill have to suffice to indicate
the long tradition, reaching far back into history, in which
. .....----
__ '.."' .... the problem of typology arose. A clear exposition of the
problem, reduced to a simple denominator, is found in the
introductionto Henry Wotton's Elements of Architecture
of 1624. Wotton distinguishesthe "historical"from the
systematicor "logical"method or approach. Only the sys-
tematic way of proceeding makes it possible to isolate and
extractrules from the historical context in orderto form
16-19. Geometrical figures and them into a (design) method. Elsewherethis same use of
the combination game. From rules remains vague, for example in Palladio, at least in
Metamorfosi del Giuoco detto
I'EnimmaChinese (Florence, the text of I quattro libri (1570)- not however in the
1818). precise abstractionevident in 'the illustrations.Regole
universaliare foreseen here as a correctiveand as a

44

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Oechslin

point of orientation for the purpose of preventingerrors.

Yet even in the eighteenth century, Pere Andre, in one of
his best-knownaesthetic treatises,Essai sur le Beau (1759),
attemptedwith a correct evaluation of the role of geometry
to clarify preciselythe distinction between the firstinvari-
able rules and the second, historicallycontingent rules in
order to specify the gradualadjustmentof art to historyand
reality.
In this climate of distinctions and analyses, Quatremrnre
de Quincy finally, with full awarenessof the rich tradition
in art history, takes up his argument. This becomes even
more apparentas his other articles (on architecture,
character,convention) and furtherwritings, such as
Considerationsmoralessur la destination d'ouvragesde
l'art (1815), are included in the analysis. The more com-
prehensivelyQuatremerede Quincy argues, the clearer his
tendency to attackthe one-sidednessof a purely "historical"
and positivisticapproachto history. In this manner he criti-
cizes the usual treatmentof mimesis. Startingfrom the the
fact that nothing exists without predecessors("I1faut un
antecadent a tout. .. ."), he turns againstliteral interpreta-
tions of imitation, aimed at the model and its repetition,
and against imitation based on its positivisticform: "Ils md-
connoissent tous les degres d'imitation morale, par analo-
gie, par rapportsintellectuels, par applicationde princips,
par appropriationde manires, de combinaisons, de rai-
sons, de systemes, etc." What are required, then, are fun-
damental, systematic, analogic, rational, and combinatory
kinds of processesin the context of the encounter with
history. And here it becomes clear that Quatremerede
Quincy argues from the position of one .who is aware of
the possibilityof misapplicationand trivializationin han-
dling this fundamental problem in architecture,and who
realizes he has been confrontedwith such misuse. The
problemof appropriateusage thus overshadows,at least
partly,the systematic intention with which Quatremerede
Quincy discusses the concept of typology.

One is much closer now to that "extreme"example of con-

temporarytypological effort that, once more in a mislead-
ing way, has been touted as the "piece de resistance"of all
attemptsat formalization. Durand'stable "Ensemble

45

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 1

d'edificesresultantdes divisionsdu quarrd,du parallelo-

gramme,et de leurscombinaisonsavec le cercle,"pub-
lishedin his Precisdes leqons,is commonlyseen as an
exampleof thatnarrowconceptionof typologythatturns
to the solidbasisof the universallanguageof geometryto
......
..... -- ?------------
?----- applyit in as unadulterated a manneras possibleto con-
cretearchitectonicobjectsthemselves.That Durandrelated
/--i E4 ("pure") geometricconfigurations directlyto the designpro-
cessemergesclearlybothfromhis publishingthe tablein
the relevanttractof the Precisand also fromthe immediate
juxtapositionof geometricfigureand architectural typein
the secondeditionof the table(1813).
Yet a closerexaminationshowsthatDurandby no means
represents only a counterpositionto Quatremere de
Quincy's discussion
"historical" of the of
concept typology.
20-22. These diagrams substi-
tute the more severe schemati- Not even Durandspeaksonly of a "geometrical reduction
zation of fig. 1 by choosing of architecture."On the contrary,he is concernedwith
figures derived from the clarifyingthe relationshipin architecturebetweena con-
square, indicating their imme- crete(historically)existingtypology and the generalform
diate transformation into basedon the universallawsof geometry.Whatresembles,
architecture.
in the tableof 1802, a purely"Euclidean" developmentof
a form,entirelyin the mainstreamof the attemptsat clas-
sificationthathad been extremelypopularsincethe eigh-
teenthcentury,turnsout undercloserscrutinyto be a very
carefullydevelopedattemptto legitimizemorecomplexar-
chitectonicconfigurations. Despitethe elementarynature
of the geometricfiguresshown,even in thesesimple
forms,one can makeout the architectonic thoughtbehind
them. Durandrevealsthis himselfin the revised,1813ver-
sion of the table,wheresimple("pure") geometricfigures
and theirarchitectoniccorrelates,in the formof fully
developedtypes,are presentedtogetherin the same
illustration.

The reasonsfor Durand'sdecisionto takethis clarifying

stepcan only be surmised.Apparently, in his time the rela-
tivelyhigh degreeof abstractiondemandeda morecon-
crete,but also moretrivial,clarification.For in contrastto
this secondillustration,one can see in the firstand more
abstractdiagramthe verygenesisin stagesof the architec-
tonic/geometric typologies.The old questionof findinga
fundamentalprinciple,or a radicallysystematiclayingof

46

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Oechslin

4444

Z, Z,

-4,

LILA IHI Ilbii#4 4044'* 4 4

44l, o14

~A~•i i •i!i~~ii~iiiiiii
i~iiiiii~ iiii?iiii i i!~i~~~i~~•ii
ii~
i!ii
iii
ii!ii
iiiii~~
lii~ i~
iii!!ii
liiii i~
liiiiiiiiiii
iii
iiiilii!
iii
iiii
ifii
iiiiiiii
ii!ii~iiii iii~i!! i!i!iii!i iiili
l iiii!~ii ~iilliii!i~iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilil~ii i~iii
i!iil -

4 1

"r
lot mm

f I -I

47

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 1

Durand'sreductive geometry as a reliable method of gen-

erating large-scale typologies whose "functional"definition
goes beyond any single "buildingtype," but embodies urban
"relevance."

23. J.-N.-L.Durand,formule 24. J.-N.-L.Durand, marche6

graphique applicable aux suivre dans la composition d'un
edifices public vout6s: compari- projet quelconque: demonstra-
son of geometrical schemes tion of method showing how
and possible adoption for to generate building types
public structures. through a geometrical device.

25, 26. Durandianschemes of

differently developed geometr-
ical complexity, on the way to-
ward defining more complex
typologies.

48

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Oechslin

Sequence of "large typology" schemes as used in the tra-

dition of academic architecturalculture in the second half of the
eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century.

foundations for architecturein the sense of Euclidean

geometry, is precisely considered in the process, as at the
same time the bow is strung for historywith its concrete
objects and actualizations.
A brief descriptionof the original diagramwill be helpful
here. In nine vertical columns, basic geometric figuresand
their variantsare presentedwith an arrayof transformations
according to the criterion of analogy. The first four col-
umns deal with the simple square, the squaredivided into
thirds, into fourths, and the square subdividedinto
doubled symmetry;the next two columns are for the hori-
zontal and vertical rectangle;two more present the circle
and semicircle; while the last column takesa composite
figure (subdividedsquare with an inscribedsemicircle) as a
startingpoint. The variationsin the firstcolumn suggestan
ordered, that is, systematic, sequence accordingto pattern:
27. Alessandro Rossini,pianta square;open square;square open on two sides;halved
del Tempio con Canonica square;twice-halved square;combined open and divided
Collegio ed Ospedali, Accade- figure;combined figure open on two sides and subdivided;
mia di San Luca,Rome, 1702. figure open on all sides and twice subdivided. This varia-
An early example of complex tion is not without a stringentlogic. Yet it is not carried
28. G. P. M. Dumont, essai de
typological schemes proposed
for an academic competition. plan pour un chateau ou through in the other columns with the same clarity and
grande maison de plaisance: strictness.The reason for this is not so much inability
geometrical and typological
(Durand demonstrateshis systematicintentions quite ade-
regularity and the pretext of
an architecturaltheme, 1775. quately in the first column) as it is an early conformingto
possible, that is, reasonable, architecturaloutlines or their
geometrical abstractions,respectively.
This jumbling reveals itself entirely in the figuresfor
which the increases in complexity are attained in surprising
leaps ratherthan stepwise and systematically.The compli-
cation of geometric form runs from the.top left down to
the bottom right of the table. There the figuresare found
that both follow and anticipatetypical architectonicout-
lines (predominantlyof the academic-wealthystamp)and
are immediately intelligible and verifiableas "architec-
tonic." The graphic clarificationsmake this apparent.They
show, for example, that the basic floor plan or typological
definition of Durand's last geometricalfigure corresponds
to the design that Marie-JosephPeyre chose for his Acad-
emy project (made famous by its publication in Oeuvres
d'architecture),which constituted for Peyre the starting
point for a whole series of "analogous"projects.

49

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 1

The decisive point about this observationis that quite

probablyeven within his demonstrativefigure arguing on
"purelytypological"ground, and indirectlywithin the
bounds of his design methodology, Durand maintainsthe
connection with precise, historicallycontingent objects,
which was regardedas given at the time and thus placed
at his disposal, clearly in sight. On the other hand, the
design method was intended in fact to lead to concrete
results, which in their turn constitutedthe historyof
architecture.
An analogous, contrastingconsiderationmust also be
added to Durand'seffortsin the history of architecture.
Just as the Precisdes leqonswas intended to satisfythe
systematic requirementsof the designing architect, the
Recueil et paralldledes tous les Mdificesanciens et
modernesof 1800 was to make the historyof architecture
available to him. In keeping with his own systematicinten-
tions - though this time with a differentorientationthan
in the Precis- Durand intended to workformallyon the
historical material as well. Furthermore,this had to be
29. D. L. Detant, Accademia di
San Luca, 1762. done so that both comparabilityof forms and applicability
of concrete design work were alwaysguaranteedin the
process of reducing them to the essentials(that is, in repre-
senting typological diversity)as well as in the processof
standardizingboth measuresand means of graphic
representation.
In both undertakings- the systematicas well as the his-
torical - Durand shows himself readyto compromise.
Neither is his systematic-geometricalapproachexclusively
abstract,nor does his history remain unsystematic.History
is not played off against systematics.Rather, the basic pre-
suppositionsof dealing with systematicsand with history
are both considered in orderto meaningfully introducety-
pology, the "theoryof figures,"as an intermediatecourt of
appeal. The realization of this project, in accordancewith
the distinction between type and model tossed into the bal-
ance as a weighty argumentby Quatremerede Quincy,
remained at that time unfulfilled. And therefore- in the
30. SirJohn Soane, ground light of these theoretical efforts, in other words, beforeput-
plan of a design for senate
house, 1779.
ting them into practice- at the other end of the discus-
sion of typology a good deal of autonomy was necessarily
granted. In any case, introducingtypologyto design prac-

50

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Oechslin

tice would not (as, for example, Zevi seems to do) replace
the creativityof the design process that would necessarily
follow, but ratherwould merely set out more demanding
conditions and premises. The self-evident interactionwith
these conditions has been lost to the architect in the new
mythos of the unbound desire for invention. (Even the
doctrine of mimesis had decisively limited this!) This myth
leaves the architect wholely at a loss, so that architectureis
then surrenderedever more completely to accidents and to
forces foreign to architectureitself.
In its appeal to general geometrical forms, Durand'sdia-
gram also shows that an identificationof architectonicfig-
ures with functions and interpretationswas prematureat
the least, prior to the confrontation- to be sought from
within contemporarydesign itself - with fully developed
or developing traditions.The theory of charactercan set a
similar contextual condition. Quatremerede Quincy
expresslymentions that the type must receive its conven-
tional application (emploilusagenaturel) accordingto
necessity (besoin)and natural constitution (nature). So
architecturedoes not come about by blind translationof
geometries. The circle of the argumentationis rounded
out when one considers that elsewhere, namely, in his
Considerationsmoralessur la destination d'ouvragesde
l'art, along with other conventions of varyingdegrees of
31. Dionisio Santi, edificio alla
maniera degli antichi musei di necessity, Quatremerede Quincy drawson those basic Vi-
pitagorici italiani, 1806. From
truvian concepts (firmitas/utilitas/venustras)that have for
Opere dei GrandiConcorsi so long acted as regulativeprinciples in architecture.Once
premiate dall'l. R. Accademia more, in such cases it is not a matterof his pinning archi-
delle Belle Arti in Milano tecture down to its societal actualizationsor its indispen-
(Milan, 1824). Square structure sable historicity. Instead, he is concerned with defining the
with two semicircularannexes,
internally resolved in a polygo- remaining freedom, within and despite this conditioning,
nal form, and annex of a that guaranteesthe artistthe ability to function effectively
square structure with circle and the possibilityof affecting society, and in this way
inscribed.
passes on to him a precisely defined role.
In light of this broadenedconsiderationof the work of
Quatremerede Quincy, it furtherbecomes apparentthat
the discussion of typology is by no means a matterof sim-
plification or standardizationor of a reductivemodel of
architecturalinvention. On the contrary,we must perceive
in his work an intelligently developed construct in which
the link is ensured between the systematicand the histori-

51

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 1

32. E. L. Boullee, project for

the extension of Versailles,
1780.

cal or conventional (and thereforealways societally

oriented) limitations of architecturein their reciprocal
dependence.
Notes Figure Credits
All illustrationscourtesy of the
1. English translationin Opposi-
author.
tions 8 (1977): 148-50.
2. First published in Munich,
1962. Now in the Enciclopedia
33. CharlesFourier,project for Universaledell'Arte(Venice). En-
Phalanstere, 1822. glish translation, "On the Typology
of Architecture,"by Joseph Rykwert
in ArchitecturalDesign (December
1963): 564-65.

34. C. Perrault,drawing of an
observatory.

35. F. Milizia, reproduction of

the observatory as an example
of good architecture. From
Prinicipidi Architettura Civile
(Finale, 1781-1800).

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Oechslin

36, 37. U. Vitry,model of a

"Home in the TurkishStyle":
utilization of Perrault'sscheme,
plan and elevation. FromU.
Vitry,IIProprietarioArchitetto
(Venice, 1840).

53

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.218 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions