Birth of a style

How do we explain a style in architecture? As a student, I was asked to refer to the History of Architecture by Sir Banister Fletcher. I remember the first glimpse of the great treatise -the tome even in its early editions looked formidable, and (as I later found out) it is indeed a great book of reference for history.

The history as presented in the book is quite systematic-every chapter begins with an introduction to the style, its architectural character, religious & political background, influences of climate and culture, resources available & so on.

All this, however, does not explain the nature of architecture that actually emerged. Take for example, the pointed arch. This arch form was known for quite some time, even during the Romanesque period, but most of the churches in this period did use only the semi-circular arch. Why then, we do not see any Romanesque building with pointed arches?

There is more to the matter than the explanation regarding climate, resources and the development of technology at that time would provide. These factors do exist in giving the final shape to any architecture, but the actual design is a conscious matter of choice. All architecture is deliberate.

Take the matter of technology first. The Romans had perfected the barrel vault but it was a bulky affair, and in a span of a thousand years somebody was bound to come up with the idea of ribs & panels, which was a great technological innovation. But it does speak a lot of the intellectual capacity of the one who thought about it- this is not something that the Church could order. The nature of innovation also suggests that it was a freemason who would put his efforts and simplyfy the construction - the architectural character of the building does not change, whether you have a cross barrel vault or a rib & panel construction.

The second aspect of the matter is the development of geometry. All the construction in middle ages was (using the current nomenclature) pre-fabricated. Each & every stone to be used in construction had to be dressed on the ground and then placed in position. This meant, that you must be able to do complete shop drawings, using the knowledge of geometry that you had, and then only you would be able to do the job right. No wonder the free masons were considered as exalted professionals-with knowledge of both geometry & construction.

The complexity of the Romanesque construction, even with the simple semi-circular arch is astonishing. The problem of the higher diagonal rib was solved by various guilds in their own ways, and provided a regional distinction. This would mean that after a certain detail was improvised & mastered-the entire region would follow the practice.

There is also the matter of the plan of the Church proper. Converting the plan to a latin cross was not a functional issue-it was more a symbolic gesture. That in fact would explain why there are many examples of later period where the plan is not a cross. So also is the issue of cardinal directions. It can be shown that symbolism of this kind has been tramnsferred across religion.

The matter of style thus is a complex affair-more about this in the next blog