Classical architecture typically refers toarchitecture consciously derived from the principles ofGreek andRoman architecture ofclassical antiquity, or more specifically, fromDe architectura (c. 10 AD) by the Roman architectVitruvius.[1][2] Variations of classical architecture have arguably existed since theCarolingian Renaissance,[1] and became especially prominent during theItalian Renaissance and the later period known asneoclassical architecture or Classical revival. While classical styles of architecture can vary, they generally share a common "vocabulary" of decorative and structural elements.[1][2][3] Across much of theWestern world, classicalarchitectural styles have dominated the history of architecture from theRenaissance untilWorld War II. Classical architecture continues to influence contemporary architects.
The termclassical architecture can also refer to any architectural tradition that has evolved to a highly refined form, such as classical Chinese or Mayan architecture. It may also describe architecture that adheres to classical aesthetic philosophy. The term might be used differently from "traditional" or "vernacular architecture", it can share underlying axioms with it.
For contemporary buildings following authentic classical principles, the termNew Classical architecture is often used.
Classical architecture is derived from thearchitecture ofancient Greece and ancient Rome. After thecollapse of the western part of the Roman empire, the architectural traditions of the Roman Empire ceased to be practised in large parts of western Europe. In theByzantine Empire, however, ancient ways of building methods survived, though they gradually developed into a distinctByzantine style.[4] The first conscious attempts to bring back the architectural language of classical antiquity into Western Europe emerged during theCarolingian Renaissance of the late 8th and 9th centuries. The gatehouse ofLorsch Abbey (c. 800) in present-dayGermany features alternating attached columns and archesl an almost direct paraphrase of e.g., that of theColosseum in Rome.[5]
WhileByzantine,Romanesque, and even to some aspects ofGothic architecture (with which classical architecture is often posed) incorporate classical elements and details, they generally do not reflect a systematic effort to revive or emulate the architectural principles of antiquity. For instance, they typically do not adhere the idea ofa systematic order of proportions for columns. As such, these styles are not considered classical architecture in the strict sense.[3]
.jpg)
_20081204-1_retouched.jpg)
During theItalian Renaissance and with the demise of Gothic style, major efforts were made by architects such asLeon Battista Alberti,Sebastiano Serlio andGiacomo Barozzi da Vignola to revive the language of architecture of first and foremost ancient Rome. This was done in part through the study of the ancient Roman architectural treatiseDe architectura byVitruvius, and to some extent by studying the actual remains of ancient Roman buildings in Italy.[3] Nonetheless, the classical architecture of the Renaissance from the outset represents a highly specific interpretation of the classical ideas. In a building like theOspedale degli Innocenti inFlorence byFilippo Brunelleschi, one of the earliest Renaissance buildings (built 1419–1445), the treatment of the columns for example has no direct antecedent inancient Roman architecture.[6] During this time period, the study of ancient architecture developed into the architectural theory of classical architecture; somewhat over-simplified, that classical architecture in its variety of forms ever since have been interpretations and elaborations of the architectural rules set down during antiquity.[7]
Most of the styles originating in post-Renaissance Europe can be described as classical architecture. This broad use of the term is employed by SirJohn Summerson inThe Classical Language of Architecture. The elements of classical architecture have been applied in radically different architectural contexts than those for which they were developed, however. For example,Baroque orRococo architecture are styles which, although classical at root, display an architectural language much in their own right. During these periods,architectural theory still referred to classical ideas but rather less sincerely than during the Renaissance.[1]
ThePalladian architecture developed from the style of theVenetian architectAndrea Palladio (1508–1580) had a great influence long after his death, above all in Britain, where it was adopted for many of the grander buildings of theGeorgian architecture of the 18th and early 19th century.
As a reaction to late Baroque and Rococo forms, architectural theorists fromc. 1750 through what became known asNeoclassicism again consciously and earnestly attempted to emulate antiquity, supported by recent developments inClassical archaeology and a desire for an architecture based on clear rules and rationality.Claude Perrault,Marc-Antoine Laugier andCarlo Lodoli were among the first theorists of Neoclassicism, whileÉtienne-Louis Boullée,Claude Nicolas Ledoux,Friedrich Gilly andJohn Soane were among the more radical and influential.[1] Neoclassical architecture held a particularly strong position on the architectural scenec. 1750–1850. The competingneo-Gothic style however rose to popularity during the early 1800s, and the later part the 19th century was characterised by a variety of styles, some of them only slightly or not at all related to classicism (such asArt Nouveau), andEclecticism. Although classical architecture continued to play an important role and for periods of time at least locally dominated the architectural scene, as exemplified by theNordic Classicism during the 1920s, classical architecture in its stricter form never regained its former dominance. With the advent ofModernism during the early 20th century, classical architecture arguably almost ceased to be practised.[8]
As noted above, classical styles of architecture dominated Western architecture for a long time, roughly from the Renaissance until the advent of Modernism. That is to say, that classical antiquity at least in theory was considered the prime source of inspiration for architectural endeavours in the West for much ofModern history. Even so, because of liberal, personal or theoretically diverse interpretations of the antique heritage, classicism covers a broad range of styles, some even so to speak cross-referencing, likeNeo-Palladian architecture, which draws its inspiration from the works of Italian Renaissance architectAndrea Palladio, who himself drew inspiration from ancient Roman architecture.[9] Furthermore, it can be argued that styles of architecture not typically considered classical, like Gothic, can contain classical elements. Therefore, a simple delineation of the scope of classical architecture is difficult to make.[3] The more or less defining characteristic can still be said to be a reference to ancient Greek or Roman architecture, and the architectural rules or theories that derived from that architecture.
In the grammar of architecture, the wordpetrification is often used when discussing the development ofsacred structures such astemples, mainly with reference to developments in the Greek world. During theArchaic and earlyClassical periods (about the 6th and early 5th centuries BC), the architectural forms of the earliest temples had solidified and theDoric emerged as the predominant element. The most widely accepted theory in classical studies is that the earliest temple structures were of wood and the great forms, or elements of architectural style, were codified and rather permanent by the time the Archaic became emergent and established. It was during this period, at different times and places in the Greek world, that the use of dressed and polished stone replaced the wood in these early temples, but the forms and shapes of the old wooden styles were retained in a skeuomorphic fashion, just as if the wooden structures had turned to stone, thus the designation "petrification"[10] or sometimes "petrified carpentry"[11] for this process.
This careful preservation of the traditional wooden appearance in the stone fabric of the newer buildings was scrupulously observed and this suggests that it may have been dictated by religion rather than aesthetics, although the exact reasons are now lost in antiquity. Not everyone within the reach of Hellenic civilization made this transition. TheEtruscans in Italy were, from their earliest period, greatly influenced by their contact with Greek culture and religion, but they retained their wooden temples (with some exceptions) until their culture was completely absorbed into the Roman world, with the great woodenTemple of Jupiter on the Capitol in Rome itself being a good example. Nor was it the lack of knowledge of stone working on their part that prevented them from making the transition from timber to dressed stone.[citation needed]
