Tectonic Modalities in Baroque Architecture

An Alternative Historiography

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Erwin Panofsky’s 1934 essay, entitled “What is Baroque?” provides an opening to discuss the state of the tectonic in Baroque architecture. His text raises a number of issues including: what was missing in the available literature on the art and architecture of Baroque that Panofsky wanted to bring to the reader’s attention? Should Panofsky’s take on Baroque be considered as part of a general problematic that sees Baroque as a unique state of mind and aesthetics, an understanding that has been revisited whenever the culture of Humanism faces its historical limits? To explore the broader theoretical connotations and implications of the questions raised here, this essay will investigate the position of two other major art historians on the subject, Heinrich Wölfflin and Alois Riegl. These historians will be discussed in connection to their discursive commonality with Gottfried Semper’s theory of tectonics. I will give particular attention to various interpretations of the tectonic of column and wall, if only to index the possibility of a different reading of Baroque architecture. These readings will make the following historiographic points: I will argue that neither rhetoric nor Jesuit propaganda was tooled enough to deconstruct the tectonic potentialities of a masonry construction system practised within the representational system of Humanism, Baroque architecture included. I will also discuss the singularity of Baroque architecture in its complex rapport with the culture of Humanism; I will consider its deviations from the Humanist ethos, and the possibility of opening a new chapter where the major concerns and principles of Humanism can continue to be relevant in a different historical circumstances. Finally, I will present the historicity of the 1930s, and the emergence of the thematic of critical historiography, as the missing point in most contemporary theorization of Baroque in general, and of Panofsky’s text in particular
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-12
    Number of pages12
    JournalAthens Journal of Architecture
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint

    Tectonics
    Modality
    Baroque
    Historiography
    Humanism
    Rapport
    Ethos
    Art Historians
    Art
    Deviation
    1930s
    Thematic
    Jesuits
    State of Mind
    Discursive
    Reader
    Potentiality
    Historian
    Humanist
    Masonry

    Cite this

    @article{f5ff8f81670e42b9a83cd07ae01c65ce,
    title = "Tectonic Modalities in Baroque Architecture: An Alternative Historiography",
    abstract = "Erwin Panofsky’s 1934 essay, entitled “What is Baroque?” provides an opening to discuss the state of the tectonic in Baroque architecture. His text raises a number of issues including: what was missing in the available literature on the art and architecture of Baroque that Panofsky wanted to bring to the reader’s attention? Should Panofsky’s take on Baroque be considered as part of a general problematic that sees Baroque as a unique state of mind and aesthetics, an understanding that has been revisited whenever the culture of Humanism faces its historical limits? To explore the broader theoretical connotations and implications of the questions raised here, this essay will investigate the position of two other major art historians on the subject, Heinrich W{\"o}lfflin and Alois Riegl. These historians will be discussed in connection to their discursive commonality with Gottfried Semper’s theory of tectonics. I will give particular attention to various interpretations of the tectonic of column and wall, if only to index the possibility of a different reading of Baroque architecture. These readings will make the following historiographic points: I will argue that neither rhetoric nor Jesuit propaganda was tooled enough to deconstruct the tectonic potentialities of a masonry construction system practised within the representational system of Humanism, Baroque architecture included. I will also discuss the singularity of Baroque architecture in its complex rapport with the culture of Humanism; I will consider its deviations from the Humanist ethos, and the possibility of opening a new chapter where the major concerns and principles of Humanism can continue to be relevant in a different historical circumstances. Finally, I will present the historicity of the 1930s, and the emergence of the thematic of critical historiography, as the missing point in most contemporary theorization of Baroque in general, and of Panofsky’s text in particular",
    keywords = "Baroque, architectural history, tectonic",
    author = "Gevork HARTOONIAN",
    year = "2015",
    language = "English",
    pages = "1--12",
    journal = "Athens Journal of Architecture",
    issn = "2407-9472",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Tectonic Modalities in Baroque Architecture

    T2 - An Alternative Historiography

    AU - HARTOONIAN, Gevork

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - Erwin Panofsky’s 1934 essay, entitled “What is Baroque?” provides an opening to discuss the state of the tectonic in Baroque architecture. His text raises a number of issues including: what was missing in the available literature on the art and architecture of Baroque that Panofsky wanted to bring to the reader’s attention? Should Panofsky’s take on Baroque be considered as part of a general problematic that sees Baroque as a unique state of mind and aesthetics, an understanding that has been revisited whenever the culture of Humanism faces its historical limits? To explore the broader theoretical connotations and implications of the questions raised here, this essay will investigate the position of two other major art historians on the subject, Heinrich Wölfflin and Alois Riegl. These historians will be discussed in connection to their discursive commonality with Gottfried Semper’s theory of tectonics. I will give particular attention to various interpretations of the tectonic of column and wall, if only to index the possibility of a different reading of Baroque architecture. These readings will make the following historiographic points: I will argue that neither rhetoric nor Jesuit propaganda was tooled enough to deconstruct the tectonic potentialities of a masonry construction system practised within the representational system of Humanism, Baroque architecture included. I will also discuss the singularity of Baroque architecture in its complex rapport with the culture of Humanism; I will consider its deviations from the Humanist ethos, and the possibility of opening a new chapter where the major concerns and principles of Humanism can continue to be relevant in a different historical circumstances. Finally, I will present the historicity of the 1930s, and the emergence of the thematic of critical historiography, as the missing point in most contemporary theorization of Baroque in general, and of Panofsky’s text in particular

    AB - Erwin Panofsky’s 1934 essay, entitled “What is Baroque?” provides an opening to discuss the state of the tectonic in Baroque architecture. His text raises a number of issues including: what was missing in the available literature on the art and architecture of Baroque that Panofsky wanted to bring to the reader’s attention? Should Panofsky’s take on Baroque be considered as part of a general problematic that sees Baroque as a unique state of mind and aesthetics, an understanding that has been revisited whenever the culture of Humanism faces its historical limits? To explore the broader theoretical connotations and implications of the questions raised here, this essay will investigate the position of two other major art historians on the subject, Heinrich Wölfflin and Alois Riegl. These historians will be discussed in connection to their discursive commonality with Gottfried Semper’s theory of tectonics. I will give particular attention to various interpretations of the tectonic of column and wall, if only to index the possibility of a different reading of Baroque architecture. These readings will make the following historiographic points: I will argue that neither rhetoric nor Jesuit propaganda was tooled enough to deconstruct the tectonic potentialities of a masonry construction system practised within the representational system of Humanism, Baroque architecture included. I will also discuss the singularity of Baroque architecture in its complex rapport with the culture of Humanism; I will consider its deviations from the Humanist ethos, and the possibility of opening a new chapter where the major concerns and principles of Humanism can continue to be relevant in a different historical circumstances. Finally, I will present the historicity of the 1930s, and the emergence of the thematic of critical historiography, as the missing point in most contemporary theorization of Baroque in general, and of Panofsky’s text in particular

    KW - Baroque

    KW - architectural history

    KW - tectonic

    M3 - Article

    SP - 1

    EP - 12

    JO - Athens Journal of Architecture

    JF - Athens Journal of Architecture

    SN - 2407-9472

    ER -