Branko Mrrnovie Aesthetic Formalism in Renaissance Architectural Theory‘ It is a peculiarity of che human mind that allows us to think in both words and pictures, both verbally and visually. Each of these two abilities is better suited for a different purpose. On the ‘one hand, it is impossible to imagine visually, or perceive, abstract concepts such as serendipity. On the other, it can be very difficult and some- times impossible to describe in words the shape and disposition of spatial objects. Thinking about some properties of objects may require abstract concepts while other properties can only be thought about visually; the former type of thoughts can sometimes be expressed only i words, while the latter are more easily expressed in drawings? This distinction between visual and verbal, image and word, shape and concept, formal propenies of objects and meanings (narratives) ascribed to them, brings us to the central ques~ tion of this article: Did Renaissance architectural theorists ~ or did they not ~ assume chat itis pos- \ This paper i based on she lecture 1 presented at the anafian Contre for Architecture in Apri 2008. ove grattade to Phyllis Lambert, Professor James Acker- ‘man, Professor Mark Jarzombek and Professor Mario CCarpo for stimulating debates and insights which ulti- rately resulted in this article, and [also owe gratitude to Professor Peter Lautner, Dr. Christopher Martin and Dr. Stefano Franchi for he help and advice inthe Brepration of the final version of the ace, The fom my resetich Goring. sucesive fellomshipe at Harvard Center lor Renatssance Studies ol Tate and Canadian Cee for Arcee thou the ness sary etinm 10 stady Renaissance philosophy whic these ovo institutions provided, 1 simply woukd noc have had the knowledge to write the article. My geati- tude must also go to my home iasiution, Unitee Insti= tute of Technology; for tolerating my long absences and for providing material support in the preparation Zurnscumure rn Kunsroiscnicare 66. Band/ 2005 {eb kann das Wort so hoch unmoglich schitzen... Goethe, Faust, 1.1226. sible to judge architectural works purely on the basis of their formal properties ~i.. those prop- erties that can be visualized ~ and independently of the meanings ascribed to these works? While Renaissance architectural theorists engaged in extensive discussions about judgments based on the meanings ascribed to architectural works, the question is whether they thought chat it was also possible to evaluate architectural works indepen- dently of these meanings? Or did they think that all judgments of architecture always depend, partly at least, on the meanings ascribed to archi tectural works and their parts? Did Renaissance theorists allow that architects may make some design decisions purely on the basis of formal preference and independently of meanings, nar- ratives and the conceptual and verbal thoughts attached to the shapes under consideration? Were they able vo conceive of purely formal aesthetic evaluation? If they allowed that some judgments can pertain 10 purely formal properties, how ofthe article, Special thanks to Karen Wise, whose he ike “erie x othe are was dese for ies final form. — The topic ofthe paper closely corre- Ite to my long-term research projet about philoao- phical influcness in Renaissance architectur! theory. ‘The segment about Barbaro’ description of the role of the intellect in aesthetic judgmenc it amends my’ earlier presentation of the same topic in Paduan Aristotlia- hism and Daniele Barbaro's Commentary on Vitruvius! De archivecturas, in: Sixteenth Century Journal, 29, 998, 667~688, esp. 683-686; in that ealier paper I Was unaware of the Themistian background of Barba- ro dacupon lh babi inlet fl 2 It is possible to define any shape by 2 system of equa- tions of analytic geomesty, and theoretically i should be possible to communicate about spaial objets by reciting such a system of equations instead of using Arawingswould this ability have been accounted for with- in the Renaissance understanding of the func- tioning of the human mind? The question is not whether the evaluation of architectural works as described in Renaissance architectural theory {and design procedures motivated by such eval- uation) depends more on formal (visual) or con- ceptual (verbal) properties, but simply whether Renaissance architectural theorists allowed for the existence of a capacity for purely formal aes- thetic judgment at all. ‘The question is particularly relevant in the contest of our contemporary Renaissance scho- larship, which has emphasized the study of ‘meanings to the exclusion of everything else. It is reasonable to ask whether the intentions of Renaissance architectural theorists. were really exclusively delimited to the use of architecture to ... tot aedifieit forma et figueaipsis in Kacamentis conqui Lett 9 Et licebie imegeas formas praesribere animo et ‘mente seuss omni materia; quam rem assequernut sdnotando ct prafiniendo agulos et lineas ert direc- tione et connexione.« ibid 112.4% “ to». eit ego lincamentum certs constansque persrip- concepta anim, facta lineis et angulis perfectaque animo ex ingenioerudiv ‘urycimir HU KussrGescHCHTe 66. Band/ 2003 % says, are a »perscriptios, conceived in the mind, made up of lines and angles, and perfected in the rational soul and »ingenium."° Elsewhere in the treatise Alberti used the word »perscri refer to a drawing or a visual des Lineaments are thus the formal properties which ‘we can imagine visually. By contemplating visual images we decide about the spatially feasible dis- position of the formal p-operties of the building. ‘Another well-known example of the assump- tion that the formal properties of a building are y jsual imagery, is the program of illustrazions which Palladio de- veloped for his treatise, / quattro libri dellerchi- tettura of 1570." The weatise is dominated by drawings which combine orthogonal projections in order to present clearly the spatial disposition of che format elements of a building. On the basis of a drawing such as figure 1, we should be able to form the idea of an fonic column, know what itis like and then, if necessary, visualize it or draw it from differere sides. We can similarly explain the architect's idea not only of a derail but of the whole building (fig. 2). (In this paper I shall tall about the ideas of buildings or their 11 The erucial segment tha establishes thst perscription stole underatood a eving the sett chap ter ofthe firs book. When talking about the act of ing the outline for «building Alberti used =per~ cane Naber dean that this statement is ment to be general and pertain to any poncrpn, Conseuony te Be te .tceaer and 2afg at when expliting the difference between architect and oases ewig, Albert wsdl pore fia elec drawing Wher onlin thts pa tBapls Oran says sdiegnoe pituran ard Theor »Zcichnungen cincs Malers und der eines Achiteh {contin the scond plese Oral usa sopers bre FES heres theue tas “Pine und Zaicrurgene Ijkwere Lesh and Tarernor used cdrawinge ad ‘Rots or the fs enon ad sewing te pur tnd tne ol heather 12 Andrea Palladio, 1 quattro libri dell'architettura, Venice tape Puganion sine sordag othe eden pre frei by Unico Agape an Poo Man, Misn Fote Far ciscusser alf aldios method of eh, taal deleaton se Broan Rupprti, Pz, der Arcitekrurdartling in Pallaos 1 quatro ibn deren, ee Rare, Graccr db Ver deni des Paladin Hida 18 333