Discussion 1: Alberti
This is a tiered assignment. After reading the excerpt provided through the course website, completing the worksheet and sending it to the graduate assistant, continue with this discussion. iYour participation is requested according to this schedule. Note: responses should not exceed 125 words.
First response: What do you think is Alberti’s most important criteria for evaluating buildings? What evidence can you provide from the text to support your idea?
Follow-up comment: Engage with a few of your peers. Whose ideas can you support and expand upon with more information? Whose ideas do you want to challenge, and based on what evidence? In developing your responses consider:
- What comments could you make or questions could you raise that would deepen or move the conversation forward?
- What among these posts was particularly helpful or interesting to you and why
- What ideas require more clarification? Pose questions that will help to clarify any points that are not clear.
- What new questions arose and what questions remain?
Summary/takeaway: After reviewing the whole of the discussion, offer a summary statement of the views expressed, and draw the discussion to a conclusion. In developing your responses consider:
- What is the general consensus of the group, and is it founded on good evidence?
- What provocative, outlier notions were suggested that help focused the group’s understanding by challenging other ideas?
- What insights did you gain from reflecting on this work through the eyes of yourcolleagues?
I believe that Alberti’s most important criteria for evaluating buildings would be his statement that everything is best when it is tempered to its own importance. What I took from this quote, was Alberti saying buildings looked and performed at their highest quality when they achieved adequate function, proper material for the building type, and overall, beauty. Almost all other quotes in the reading support this one specific quote; “…work should not only be feasible but appropriate…”. Alberti is basically saying that structures should fit in within their surrounding environment while at the same time, still remaining functional for the specific use, and building type of the structure.
I agree with this belief. When I first read through the excerpts from Alberti’s “On the Art of Building in Ten Books”, I had came to the conclusion that the most important criteria for evaluating buildings was their beauty based off of the quote “graceful and pleasant appearance, so it is thought, derives from beauty and ornament alone”. While Alberti does go on to describe beauty as perfection, his later discussion of what is appropriate design for different building types supports your theory greatly. He explains why Churches and houses should differ in appearance, primarily through use of ornament in what is considered sacred/eternal and through simplicity in the structure of a family dwelling, both of these differing building types still being considered beautiful on their own terms. I think it’s important to state this because Alberti speaks so much to beauty in design. This is reiterated by his summary of this topic in book IX, where he states that sacred buildings should be designed so that nothing more could be added to enhance it, while private buildings should be designed so that nothing could be taken away from it. I believe you touch on this specific idea very briefly in your post when you state that consideration of function and environment is most important, but I also believe that a deeper response is needed in order to understand how large of a role beauty plays in reaching this conclusion.
Shawn,
I agree with you in the sense that Alberti’s most important criteria for evaluation buildings with be his emphasis on beauty and importance. He discussed the difference between beauty and ornamentation. When discussing beauty, he states that there is beauty in the buildings function, and that if a building in not functioning properly, there is a lack of beauty. I’m glad that you mentioned these statements because those were the main topics I noticed while reading the excerpt as well.
What does it mean for something to be “tempered to its own importance” (Shawn’s idea) especially in context of the beauty/ornament ideas that Aiden considers? How does the notion of “propriety” fit in here?
Alberti’s most important criteria is that the ornament of a design does not overshadow its inherent beauty that should be apparent through intelligent design. “…beauty is some inherent property, to be found suffused all through the body of that which may be called beautiful; whereas ornament, rather than being inherent, has the character of something attached or additional.”
I will certainly agree that Alberti believed that ornamentations cannot replace the “inherent”beauty of a design, which can be reach through rules of art such as mathematics rules of proportions, but I will add that for Alberti, ornamenttations were part of three fundamentals that characterize a great design, and those fundamentals are the usefulness and stability of the design, aesthetic of its elements and finally ornamentations. For him, those three are important to make a great and consistent design, therefore, they should work together.
How do you determine that his admonition against too much ornament (in certain applications) is THE most important criteria? Ben, I appreciate your idea that there may not be a single idea that could be called out as preeminent, but several features work together.
The most important criteria for evaluating a buildings is if it follows the rules and fundamentals of Nature. That the beauty of a building does not come from the ornaments that are put on the building but the inherent design of the building. This can be seen when Alberti says “Ornament may be defined as a form of auxiliary light and complement to beauty. From this it follows, I believe, that beauty is some inherent property, to be found suffused all through the body of that which may be called beautiful; whereas ornament, rather than being inherent, has the character of something attached or additional.”
I liked how you mentioned the ornamental aspect that Alberti wrote. How a building shouldn’t just be ornamented just to express beauty and how the design of the building should be what is considered beautiful. I think the first sentence, right before your qoute, should also be considered into defining beauty. “Beauty is that reasoned harmony of all the parts within a body, so that nothing may be added, taken away, or altered, but for the worse”. (Alberti)
When Alberti says “ornament… has the character of something attached or additional”, is he stating that all ornaments take away the beauty of a building or can ornaments be a part of the harmony of all parts to the building to require it to be beautiful?
What makes you think that is THE most important thing? And how do the “fundamentals of nature” relate to the beauty/ornament idea?
Alberti’s most important criteria for evaluating buildings was whether or not the elements were assembled in a reasonable way that produced a degree of harmony which made it nearly impossible to realize any alterations. Good design is enduring. Book VI not only mentions the permanent material nature and construction of classical precedents, but their everlasting existence due to proven viable methods. In Book VI, he defines beauty as “reasoned harmony” and thinks that following a relative and variable criteria is a display of ignorance. In Book IX, he cautions to “not follow mere fancy”. And in Book IX, he specifically targets sacred buildings as being the paradigm for design that can neither be added or subtracted. This does mean that every building is held to the standard of a sacred building, but that elements are reasoned out so that the anatomy of the building is beautiful and can be so independent of supplementary aesthetics.
what’s “reasonable”, according to Alberti ? And are you talking about “reasonableness” or permanence? And what “standard” do you mean–since I would disagree, that there are some criteria that all buildings are subject to.
I believe Alberti’s most important criteria for evaluating buildings is that the building should be evaluated based on its overall structure and form rather than the ornament placed on it. Alberti sees the buildings being made in his time as having no grounding in what advancements had been made before them. He believes that the previous generations have made advancements in architecture that are worth taking note. When it comes to the building the overall form of the building should be the focus, such as what has been true for previous generations. A truly beautiful building has no unnecessary part, with each piece making it more beautiful according to Alberti.
Dallas,
I’m glad that you mentioned Alberti’s emphasis on the difference between beauty and ornaments, I wish you dug further into it. He states that a properly functioning building shows beauty in its own way while ornamentation attempts to create beauty. I think you were getting to that point in your post, you just didn’t state it. It was nice that you mentioned Alberti’s take on the use of previous architecture.
I agree that Alberti saw value in the structure of a building. But I question does ornament has the same value? Because as you said Alberti studied other buildings but don’t you think he studied the ornament and how and where those structural elements where placed and designed?
Dallas, which “generations” do you mean? And what “advancements” are significant to this argument? See if you can clarify the structure/form idea you started your comments with, and the beauty idea that wraps it up.
Allyson, take care with your conflation of ornament & beauty–these are separate (if related) things,and one does not create the other.
Hailey, where is his emphasis on structure?
I believe that ALberti had a high value for beauty within objects that already existed within itself. By that, I mean that aesthetic objects already hold a level of beauty that connects to the human experience, thus does not need to be added to. By adding more ornamentation to something of beauty, it simply distracts and takes away the beauty of the object or building that already dwells within it. ALberti said, “For within the form and figure of a building there resides some natural excellence and perfection that excites the mind and is immediately recognized by it”. Another quote that goes along with this is that, “Beauty is that reasoned harmony of all the parts within a body, so that nothing may be added, taken away, or altered, but for the worse…. Ornament may be defined as a form of auxiliary light and complement to beauty. From this it follows, I believe, that beauty is some inherent property, to be found suffused all through the body of that which may be called beautiful; whereas ornament, rather than being inherent, has the character of something attached or additional”.
ALberti thinks that beauty already exists within something, so his most important criteria for evaluating buildings is that to see the building for what it is. Look past the ornament and the decorations but look at the structure itself and see the beauty of how it exists. There is beauty in simply existing within Nature, and supported by ALberti when he says, “Beauty is a form of sympathy and consonance of the parts within a body, according to definite number, outline, and position, as dictated by the absolute and fundamental rule in Nature. This is the main object of the art of building, and the source of her dignity, charm, authority, and worth”.
Knowing and understanding what Alberti’s ideals where when it comes to buildings I would consider asking to my peers, to deepen the conversation; what do you think Alberti would say about our current skyscrapers and modern ways to create buildings? How do you think he would’ve changed in our current buildings and why? By reading some of the posts I found interesting how many people thought about the level of importance in the natural beauty of objects, people, things, etc. My on going question for Alberti’s ideals is: Why does he want to stay with what our ancestors did and not try to discover new ways to exploit the potential of new, modernized buildings. I would like to hear the answer to the question from one of my peers.
Whose post did you intend to address? You need to reply to the specific post.
i think that Alberti really takes into consideration the natural beauty of the building, as well as the natural context surrounding the building. Alberti speaks of the importance of the way we ensure the safety of the already existing beauty of nature. Alberti finishes the excerpt by saying, “Beauty is a form of sympathy and consonance of the parts within a body, according to definite number, outline, and position, as dictated by the absolute and fundamental rule in Nature. This is the main object of the art of building, and the source of her dignity, charm, authority, and worth.” This demonstrates the significance that beauty holds in the eyes of Alberti
The quote that you pointed out from the reading got me thinking that Alberti had similar view points to those of Vitruvius. Vitruvius believed that when considering the design of a building you should consider three things: utilitas (functionality), firmitas (strenght), and Venustas (beauty). Nature is an important aspect of beauty for these two figures. They both believe in the importance of the parts within a building, Alberti states that the parts need to be in consonance or balance. Vitruvius puts a special emphasis on the parts of the body or of a building being proportional.
Greg,
The quote you used in your response was a great choice if one was to summarize Alberti’s excerpt in a couple of sentences. He emphasizes how we can find and create beauty in a building. In order for a building to be truly beautiful, it must also be functioning properly within itself and what is around it as well. What did you think about when Alberti stated, “For within the form and figure of a building there resides some natural excellence and perfection that excites the mind and is immediately recognized by it.”? I think it would have tied well with the quotes you used as it also talks about the viewers excitement toward a buildings beauty and nature.
Greg, what would be the “natural beauty” of a building? How is it “natural”? (likewise for context). I’m not following the rest of your idea–the ‘safety’ idea and its connection to beauty? I encourage you to summarize and focus your thought in single clear expression. Alberti is a tough read, so take your time with it.
Dermeei, great connection to Vitruvius, who was a big influence for Alberti.
Allyson, are you sure you see Alberti explicitly connect function and beauty?
After reading all the responses and replies, I gathered that Alberti highly appreciated the function of architectural design. He believed that when a building functioned properly, it added to the beauty of a design. Ornament also stood out when I read through the responses, and there were various interpretations of what Alberti meant when he talked about ornament. I came to the conclusion that Alberti believed that ornament should only be used on sacred buildings, and only to the point where if any more was added, it would no longer add to the beauty of structure. I think Aiden summed this concept up the best in his reply when he contrasted Alberti’s views on sacred buildings v. private buildings.
Teddy, where in the text do you see Alberti’s alignment of function and beauty? Also, reconsider his discussion of ornament–it’s not quite as restrictive as you suggest.
Summary:
To summarize this assignment, the one criteria mentioned in almost every comment was beauty. There were several responses that used the quote “…beauty is some inherent property, to be found suffused all through the body of that which may be called beautiful; whereas ornament, rather than being inherent, has the character of something attached or additional.” Several of my peers discussed the difference between beauty and ornament. Some people took this a step farther and talked about how the structure and form of the building should be looked at to evaluate beauty as opposed to the ornamentation.
Few people touched on the idea that there is a hierarchy of visual attention a building should attract based on the building type. To elaborate on this point Alberti wrote, “The temporal [temporary] ought to concede to the sacred in dignity as far as is reasonable, so in refinement and quantity of ornament, private buildings should allow themselves to be surpassed easily by public ones” (Book IX, Chapter 1). In other words, sacred buildings should use the richest materials and stand out from public and private buildings. I think this is an important criteria that was not mentioned as much in the comments.
All in all, great analyses everyone, keep it up!
Rachel, Your observation of the beauty issue is spot-on, and indeed does emerge as a significant criteria for Alberti. I appreciate you bringing in hierarchy/propriety as a topic as well. It is certainly linked to the beauty/ornament issue.
There were many varying opinions among the group about what Alberti’s main criteria for evaluating buildings. Some responded saying it was all about the building’s “beauty”, as Alberti defined it, and ornament needs to be tempered to its own importance, the design being tempered to its function. That was most definitely important to Alberti, however some challenged that opinion, asking the question if the inherent “beauty” wasn’t the most important criteria to Alberti. Some other varying opinions were whether that main criteria were that the ornament of a design can not overshadow the inherent beauty.
These were some of the main opinions on Alberti’s criteria. Some suggested that that the main criteria were if it followed the rules and fundamentals of nature, others suggested it was evaluated based on its structure rather than the ornament and that it is important to evaluate the natural context around the building. These suggestions emphasised the complexities to which Alberti’s criteria were described.
In reflection to all these comments, I deepened my understanding of what his most important criteria is. I would say his most important criteria is that a building should have an “inherent beauty”, the balance and harmony within the essence of the building so that there is no need for something to be changed or altered. It the immediate perception of perfection within the parts that are joined in symphony to create a whole that is charming. Within that beauty, there are criteria that add to and insure that harmony. Firstly, it is essential that the building is tempered to its important, and through that perfect harmony, the beauty is furthered. Secondly, it is important that the ornament does not overshadow the inherent beauty but compliments it in every way. And lastly that the beauty is tempered to the fundamental of nature, the example of perfect beauty.
All these criteria come down to the main criteria, summarised in this quote: “…that beauty is some inherent property, to be found suffused all through the body of that which may be called beautiful.”
how do you suppose it comes to pass that a building is “suffused” in such a way?
After reviewing all the post, it seems to me that there are 3 primary ideas Alberti is conveying in the text. Beauty, structure, and functional significance are all parts that fellow students picked out. When I found students talking about beauty, they were always referencing how Alberti evaluated buildings. He sought the difference between ornamentation and beauty. He also saw the unity that the two offer design. The second idea was about the structure of a building. This wasn’t talked about as much as beauty but still held significance to the overall discussion. The reason is because beauty and structure go hand in hand in regard to design. Lastly, the class had discussed in numerous ways a buildings functional significance and how it impacts design. This specific idea intrigued me the most as I had not thought of building function while reading Alberti. After reading he the whole of the discussion board and went back and looked over the text to see it through other students’ perspectives and gained insight into how Alberti saw functional significance.
Can we have three primary things? And have you checked them against the original text? Part of the forum should be to challenge assumptions. Where is his “functional” argument?
After examining the conversations regarding Alberti, I believe there are multiple concepts that are repeated multiple times. One of these themes was the prioritization of structure and form over ornament. In a small way, Alberti helped set the course for the ideal of “form follows function.” Another theme that I see repeated is the correspondence a building must have with Nature. Alberti emphasized this when he spoke about how an experience in a building should be like an experience in Nature if the building is to be truly “beautiful.” I did spot one important point that was not mentioned much; this was the “appropriateness” of a structure. Alberti believed that a building built with an awareness of where it is placed in its context, how the building is constructed in accordance to its function, and other concerns. This aspect was critical for the ideals of the Renaissance.
Alberti was quite opinionated when it comes to what is expected of designers and the buildings they make. He thought that the structures should match what is expected of that type of building, and not to go above and beyond with ornament or plans. After reviewing all of the discussions, they were all in consensus about that mentality towards architecture and design. This concept can be easily backed up by the many quotes used directly by students in the initial posts as well as the following comments. Some of the farther-reaching ideas were that the structure itself ought to match the appropriate style per building type. While that concept was similar at its core, I believe that it was stretching what Alberti said a bit too far. Alberti taught that the ornamentation ought to match the idea of the building and to not be over the top. There was no quote spoken to reference that Alberti wants to limit the structural innovation of architects in his day in any scenario or structure type. By reflecting on the other students ideas and thought processes, it helped me to realize a few other points that Alberti wanted to get across to his readers. Reading through what my colleagues wrote reminded me that Alberti saw beauty differently than many others in his day, and even me in mine. He saw beauty in the fundamental rules in nature, and in turn how that was related to architecture. Another way to put Alberti’s concepts would be to say that if it is a good idea for a building, it will do well on its own. You shouldn’t have to go crazy decorating to make it a “good” idea. Instead it ought to be able to defend itself with just its core principles and structure.
When you say “structure,” are you using the word as a synonym for “building,” or do you mean literally the structural design of the thing, separate from other considerations?
What do you mean by “the idea of the building” or, more importantly, what are you trying to communicate about Alberti’s theory?
Be specific about your terms–what are “core principles”?
From the group, I think that we all came up with a consensus that Alberti was very concerned with not only the ornament, but also whether the building actually functioned as it was supposed to. When looking at the reading myself I did not really get why people were only talking about the beauty of the buildings being the most important because, although he did discuss it, I felt that the real importance was on whether the building fulfilled its purpose.
What passages in particular are key to the idea of “fulfilling its purpose”?
The general consensus is that Alberti’s primary focus was on natural, aesthetic beauty. Every response included something about it, and many included quotations to support the idea. This was certainly one of the most important themes in Alberti’s Treatise. His ideas of beauty, specifically harmony between the parts and the whole were central to the piece.
One aspect that could have been dug into more was the idea of appropriateness in design. According to Alberti, a structure is in its most natural, beautiful state when it fulfills its function and purpose completely, but nothing more. Gaudy ornamentation and over-extravagant designs are harshly criticized in his piece. Buildings that beg us to give the architect or the patron recognition are showpieces, not beauty.
How does “natural” or “aesthetic” beauty differ from other kinds? I’m not sure what Albertian principles you’re suggesting here.
“Appropriateness” can mean several things, and I’m glad you raised it. Another word for this is “propriety,” and it addresses what we’d call function, the realistic expectations of the builder to get the thing built, and the hierarchy that the design has within its context–both physical and functional.
Summary.
In the posts that my classmates have made many of them focus on what Alberti’s Views on beauty are and how they are the main concept of the excerpt that we read. From their forums, I deduced that Alberti’s views on beauty had a large emphasis on the fundamentals of nature and the rules that were set down by our ancestors. He believed that they achieved beauty by following their principle and that their measurements and rules were the rue way of achieving it. This is very similar to a Scientific view of design where Alberti believes that because it worked in the past it must continue working. He also believed that the ornament used must compliment and further the design to the point of perfection to where nothing could be redacted to make it better.