FUNCTION AND REPRESENTATION IN ARQ-IITECTURE MARCX') FRASCAR I, UN I VERS I TY OF PENNSYLVAN I A

As a semiotic device architecture operates between two spheres of production of signs. In Vitruvian I iterature those have been named ratjocjnatio and fabbrjca, or in Renaissance terminology theorjca and practica. The spheres can be characterized as the general and the individual. the abstract and the concrete. This paper aims to show that both the construing and the constructing of architectural signs take place in the two spheres. Architecture is the result of the merging of these spheres of signs production~ In architecture, the processes of signification and communication result from a culturally bound technology which unifies functions and representations, and the constructing with the construing. The recognition of these processes is developed discussing an 18th century Venetian architectural theory in which the union between function and representation is claimed as condltjo ~ ~~ flQil for an effective and non-trivial architectural producti on.

In order to develop an inquiry into the processes of signification and communication in architecture one must discuss the 'Janus-I ike role played by technology In the making of bui Idings. Since the time of Vitruvius, the Roman architectural rapsodlst, architecture has been recognized as the result of two components. One is predominantly manual and operative; the other is mental and reflective. (Vitruvius, I, 1, i-iv) Technology as a binominal expression of techne..Qf ~ and J..QgQs...Qf techne is the production paradigm of those two component~ Dante AI Ighieri's speculation on the exJstence of different languages gives an important clue for the understanding of this binomial relation. In thc.lliz Vulgarj EloQuentia, Dante (1304 IV) points out that before the construction of the Tower of Babel there was only one language for al I of humanity. The diversification of languages began with the erecting of the Tower. The making of the Tower is an opera which is a process for attaching meaning to objects and to transform them with regard to their own tellc structur& In other words any architectural making defines a reality and becomes a semiotic transformati on of it.

Dante describes that during the erection of the Babel Tower part of the peopl e:

"commanded, a part were master buildersl a part put up

wall s, a part dressed them with edging ••• so that although they originally used one and the same language, this became divided into many languages in the course of this

200

.... _, ,

r

l

ir o-

IS

Ie

Iy ·he

.es

wy lS II

and

US, .s

0- S Iy

n

0-

work and when the people left this project they never returned to the same mutual understanding. Only those who were united by the same activity were left with the same language. There was one for master bui Iders, another for stonerollers ••• For all the different tasks that were present at the project there arose different languages which led to the disintegration of the unity of the human

race."

(Oa nte 1304:324)

This process is an action against the existing order to destroy it and then to bui Id a new one in a completely different way. Architecture is the result of this process. (Frascari 1981)

Architecture, a physical signification, then represents the sense of dwelling using the means of construction within a culturally defined group. This representation is ruled by technology in its binomial dimension. Architectural signs serve as a means of signification for all the members of a soc l al group; but at the same time they can provide for the self expression of each Individual.

The architectural sign that is, the architectural detai I (Frascarl 1983), is by nature, both stable and mobile at the same time. When cal led upon for the concrete needs assembly in architectural artifacts details retain their Identity, and provide the place where the union between the two spheres of architectural production is achieved. This semiotic mechanism is recognized by Father Carlo lodol i (1690-1761) in his "new" arch I tectural theory.

Cristoforo Ignazio Antonio dei Conti lodol i, and by his own choice Carlo, when he pronounced his rei igious vow, was a Franciscan friar at the monastery of St. Francesco della Vigna in Venice. Trained as a theologian and a master of moral ity, Father lodol i, an unusual character, was an influential educator of noble Venetian offspring and a revo I uti onary arch i tectural theoreti ci an (Memmo 1833: I, 28-53). Because of his annoying and Irritating manners in developing his search and because of his af te c+l on for analyzing archiTecTure using not only architectural monuments but al I of human society, lodol i was labeled as "Socratic Arch i tect."

lodol i admired Gianbattista Vico, but the pair had an unsuccessful relationship, as can be found in Vico's Autobiography. (v lco 1731: 45- 51> Thoroughly Socratic for a long time lodol i refused to commit himself to writing and publ ished nothing during his I ifetime. Towards the end of his I ife he began to put his theories and thoughts about architecture on paper bUT al I his manuscripts were destroyed under un-

201

fortunate ci rcumstances. What is I eft are two drafts of outl i nes of an architectural treatise, a translation of a controversial Vitruvian passage, and a motto (Frascar i 1981, ~1emmo 1833).

In a portrait frontispiece in the first edition of Andrea Memmo's first volume of Element; di Arch;tectura Lodoliana (1786), a bust of Father Lodol i is enf ramed with i n an ova I frame and engraved on it is a motto stating: Deyonsj ~ Fabbrica e RaQiQne e ~ Functjone ~ Reppresentazione (Construction and Reason ~lust be Unified, and let the Representation be Funct l onl al D. The first part of the motto is the presentation of an architectural theory based on the "substitution" of detail which is the result of an understanding of architectural technology as a union of two processes, the construction (Fabbr t ca) and the construing (Ragione) of the built environment, that is the union of Reason and Construction within a culture.

l.odot i's architectural theory can be summarized by following the information, definitions and structure given by the two ou+l ines. In presenting them in his book, Memmo, Lodol i's faithful pupi I, states those two outl i nes "are thought out 1 n such away that they are enough for the clever connoisseurs" (Memm o 1833: II, 50-62). Bo+h outl ines are an attempt to organize a treatise in whi~h Lodol i intended to present his understanding of a new architecture, the two outl ines complement one another. The first one presents the elements and principles necessary for setting up a new architecture whereas the second sets the definitions and the relationships amongst the elements comprising the new theory. The first outl ine also indicates what it is necessary to know, and the second one, the procedures for know In~

Lodol i identifies the aims of architecture as (1) the appropriate function and (2) a proper representation which converge Into a single purpose. Sol;dity, analogy and convenience are the essential properties of representation. Ornament is not an essential property, but it is an accessory to the proper functi on and representati on. Those properties are shaped by norms derived through reasoning. Representation is the indivisible and complete expression resulting from the material employed according to geometric, arithmetic, structural, and optical reason i ngs.

Sol idity is the first essential property and it derives from a proper use of building materials. The proper use is ruled by norms which are derived from the direct study of the nature of materials and of the nature of forms of construction and structur~ Litology (stone technology) and xilology (wood technology), the logos of materials, and the ~ of vaulted and post-and-beam structure, are the required knowledge.

202

a

he

of

19h

-e-

1-

5

Ie r-

it roion i al II

ier are

:hj

Analogy is the second essential property. Analogy. or proportion, generates the set of norms which controls the production of the architectural parts (membri) through a system of typological constraints to achieve eurithmy amongst the different parts of details. These architectural details range in a hierarchical progression from the mass of the ed if ice as a part or deta i I of the urban s i tuati on, to the room s as details in the edifices to the openings as details in the rooms, and to the architectural joinery as detai led expression of the material used (xt t ol oqv- litology). ,A,nalogy uses graphic tools to verify the possibi I Ity of eurithmy. Those tools are in technography,--the representation of the mental construction--and scenography,--the representation of the visual construing--in other words, construction drawings and renderings.

To understand the meaning of the analogy between fu~c, ion and representation advocated by Lodol i, one must consider analogy in its double meaning. Of the three essential properties of architecture del ineated by Lodol i in his Outl ines, analogy Is the one which controls the process of production, whereas the other two, firmness (sol l d l tv) and commodity (convenience), are basic informative requirements. In

Lodol irs use of the V I truv I an tr i ad beauty, that is, the pr,ocess of signification, is understood and a result of a process which is techne

based on l.QfJQs_. Xi l o l oqv, I l+hol cqv, and osteology, the los;)os of

wood, stone and structure, are part of this process. In this way analogy ~ rules the process of construing and also the process of construction. In other words, the los;)os of building design has to take account of the ~ of the materials and of structures (the function, sol idity) and the los;)os of usages and customs (the organic architecture, convenience) in generating an effective architectural representati on.

Analogy is the base for meanings. Relating detail "B" to detail "A" as detai I "0" I s rei ated to detai I "C" is the basi c process for generating eurithmy, but it is also a process for making metaphor~ For instance, his cup is to Dionysius as his shield Is to Aries, so for the cup we may say, metaphorically. that it is the shield of Dionysius. The result of this is that "A" Is to "C" as "A" is to "B". This is a union of representation and function, and analogy.

In Lodol i's theory analogy is the key mode of reasoning the foundation of any construing and construction. First, Induction is appl ied to a set of detai Is (function), then deduction is appl ied to another set of detail s (reason). At the end one ach I eves a un i on between these two sets by "abduction." the merging of the relationships between the details of the first set with the relationships among the detai Is of the second set. Lodol i's analogy is a guise of reasoning with many traits

similar to C. S. Peirce's logic, a composite of induction, hypothesis (abduction) and deduction (Peirce 1931-35 2.513,733). This similarity is not just formal but has a common root. Both Peirce (1931-35) and Lodol i O~emmo 1833 I. 55.131> are interested in Gal l l eo' s procedure for develop i ng producti ve reason i ng.

Two windows opening onto a small interior garden in the monastery of S~ Francesco della Vigna are the only surviving fragments of architecture designed by Lodoll. The design of the Lodol ian window is a result of a productive reasoning based on two surprising facts. The first is the discussion of the events surrounding a broken column found on the grounds of the Venetian Arsenal (Gal l l e o 1638: 151-156); the second is the fact that window and door si I Is in the Venice bui Idings are always broken. Lodol i's analogy derives from identifying the problem of the broken si I Is with the Gal ilean story of the broken column. The story of the column is told by Salviati. one of the three characters of the dialogue developed in the Two New Sciences (Gal ileo 1638: 151-156). Salviati reports about a very large marble column

lay i ng dow n on the grounds with the two ends rest i ng on two supports. An Arsenal engineer (proto) noticing the fact suggested that it would be wise to place a third support under the middle section to avoid the breaking of the co lumn under its own weight. ~1any agreed with the suggestion and a middle support was put in place. After an interval

of time the column was found cracked because of an upl ifting force exactly over the new support. Analysis of this surprising fact developed using one of the most traditional architectural semiotic analogy, comparison of bui Iding or buf Iding parts with bodies or parts of

bodies (Fr ascer l 1982). The column is compared with a tibia with the same proporti ona Irati o- 1 :3. Then the th i ckness is com puted on the base of dead and I ive loads, and, as Sagredo pot n+s out the result is disproportionate; inferring that to maintain. in I ife, the enormous and overweighted giant derived out of that bone. one must use a much more resistant material to reduce weight. Discussion of the problem continues and results in singl ing out a sol id which is equally resistant throughout. This sol id is derived from a prism which has been cut along a parabol ic I ine connecting the two ends. This sol id allows a reduction of weight without losing strength. Salviati (Ga l f l eo)

also gives a tip on how the parabol ic I ine can be drawn on the prism. He suggests hanging a fine chain longer than the sol id to two na l Is at the ends of the prism. The result is not a parabola but a catenary. but Salviati (Gal l l eo) considers it a close approximation.

Salviati's observations tally with Lodol i's observations of broken

si lis. An upl iftlng force is the cause of this typical Venetian construction fai lure. Lodol i's proposed sol u+t on, a sill shaped after the Gal ilean Solid, Is a consequence of his construing. Memmo calls

204

..... '1' _

,·······'11

is ari)

e

56) ; Idthe

lree eo

1 ts. JI d

the

the 1e is

:h

lm is- 1

ows

sm.

s at y,

onr Is

it a case of Lodol ian osteology. Lodol i uses the catenary shape as a representation which is the result of a function and his understanding of this representation is derived from the use of the catenary in Giovanni Poleni's analysis of the structure of S. Peter Dome2in his search for a solution for making the Dome structurally sound

(Srusati n 1971 20-25; R i kwert 1976).

Conven I ence is the th i rd essenti a I property sing I ed out by Lodol i.

The norms for its control and production are derived through reasoning on the economy of the building. Economy results from considering costs of construction in relation to customs, real needs, and needs of taste. Convenience is the only point of discrepancy between the two outlines. In the first one it is classified as an accessory property whereas in the second it is I isted as an essential.

Ornament is the fourth property and it is an accessory property. Ornament, however, is controlled by norms which are derived from the "complex-approprlate-mental-mechanic" selection of materials that is a result of analogy in representation.

To further understand the character of the new architecture developed by Lodol i, one must investigate the contribution of Vico's New Science to Lodoll's new architecture. However, a better perception of

Lodoli's interest in v t co'.s New Science can be gained in the light of Vico's earl ier works. At the beginning of the academic year, 1708-09, Vico, as Professor of Eloquence, del ivered the inaugural address at the University of Naples. In this discourse, published at the end of the same year, Vico compares and considers the advantages and disadvantages between the methods of study of the ancients and those of the moderns. He intends to show the possibil ity of a reconcil iation between the two methods, which would unify the advantages of both, avoiding at the same time their disadvantages. Lodol i, as a special educator of young Venetian patricians, was undoubtedly very interested in the argument of V l cois discourse. His private school was an attempt to reproduce the structure of ancient schools of phi losophy as a structure for studying modern matters such as the indication of learning given by Bacon, and for preparing the future pol itical leaders of the Veneto (Tor cel l an 1963: 192-195).

Lodol i's Interest was not I imited to the pedagogical system discussed in Vico's Oration. Undoubtedly, he was also interested in the discussion of the I imitations of the Cartesian thinking and, above al I, in the f i el d used for the constructi on of the argument, i.e., structural mechanics (Vico 1709: 786-855). Vico is anti-Cartesian and his disCourse is the first instance of a fully developed critique of Descartes' ~·1ethod (Y l co 1710: 55-131>. He develops this critique

within five points. The first point is the negation of the Method as a productive discourse. Vico sees it as unable of achieving invention. His argument is based on the fact that the Latin jnQenium, the Ital ian jnQeQno, and the Spanish jngenio, are translated with the French word esprit, that is a transition from something meaning "invention" to something meaning "judging" (Vt co 1710: 116-117>. He argues that only the French culture could have generated the analytic geometry which is a device for putting the hu-man mind to a lazy. soporific rest. The second point is a tirade against Descarte's methodological monism. which had already been opposed by Pascal. The third point Is Vico's endeavor to make evident the superiority of geometry, or synthetic thinking, over Cartesian "analysis." The fourth point is the refusal of the reduction of physics to purely mathematics. The fifth and final point is Vico's insistence, for not merely a rational mono-dimensional man, but for a multi-dimensional man in both historical and social backgroun~

In the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Vico's Oration he develops his discussion on mechanics. He aims to show the I imitation of the Cartesian method. To describe the actual condition of modern physics Vico uses two metaphors, both of which are based on an image of a house. One metaphor is concerned with the use of a bui Iding and the other with its construction. In other words, the first refers to the construing of modern physics, whereas the second refers to its construction. The first metaphor describes modern physics as a magnificent inherited mansion, where nothing is left to do except rearranging the furniture and sl ightly modifying the ornament. In the second metaphor Cartesian physicists are bui Iders who try to repair the roof of an edifice without paying any attention to its fo~ndation. The solution to these problems can be found only by the rhetoritician. He is the technology man. He is an engineer, in the ful I Latin meaning of the word. He is the man with jnQenjum who can bui Id the new house of modern physics because with his construction he al lows the user the act of construing, and does not I imlt himself to judging.

In the fifth paragraph the discussion focuses on the negative role of analysis in producing new solutions. Analysis does not produce advancement. The real tool is geometry, a conventi ona I geometry wh i ch does not use abstract algebraic symbols and formulas, but combines visual, material and arithmetical forms. Vico's understanding of mechanics is perfectly summarized by the definition of "representation" given by Lodol i In his second outl ine of the lost treatise:

Representation is the precise and total expression resulting from the materials when they have been used in accordance to the geometrical-arithmetical-optical norms to reach a pro-

206

r

as

the

1- ar-

c

50- lodird ry, tis e nal ori-

is rteico

nuct the phor

ion he 'he

e

i of 1- ch

meion"

posed end. (Memm o 1834, II, 52)

The education of a young mind for the practice of mechanics as wei I as of any art is accompl ished through the study of forms, which are a combination of geometrical and physical properties (Looot i's geometrical-arithmetical-optical norms), and these can only be understood through genetic inv~stlgation~ The young mind should understand triangles, circles and other geometric forms embodied in the materials and the structural systems in a genetic mode. This is a process of signification based on an iconic representation. The elements of mechanics are iconic fragments, signs which represent the combination of geometri cal and physi cal norms and properties.

In teaching architecture, Lodol i follows the direction given by Vico in his study of the fragments of antiquity. To study forms in their physical and geometrical properties in the genetic mode, Lodol i organized a collection of good and bad architectural fragments in his garden in the Terra Santa Hospice, the summer location of his peripatetic architectural 'school.' The friar's collection was not I imlted to pieces of stone, real fragments of architecture, but it included also fragments of any visual art, the latter arranged in his rqoms at the Monastery Della Vigna. The layout of the display showed the influence of Vico's structure of the new SC:9nce. The fragments were organized by schools and by historical succession, or rather, using a more Vichian terminology, they were organized by nation in a philological succession. Algarotti (1764), Lodol i's unfaithful pupi I used the organizing prinCiple of the collection as a model for the art collection of the Emperor Frederich I I, an exhibit which in itself served as a reference model for many other art coil ecti on s. (Rykw er t 1980)

To fully perceive the importance of Lodol i's collection of architectural details one must understand the meaning given by Vico to nation and to philology. Vico's use of the word nation has no reference to the national state nor has it exclusive reference to a pol itical institution. The nation is not a race or a geographical setting, but rather the result of a lineage of institutions. Its identification is not given merely in a cross section of institutions at a given time, but genetically by a continually changing system of institutions. Furthermore, Vico indicates that those changes are not due to external influences but to Internal stresses created by a process of assimilat i on or rej ect ion.

Philology for Vlco is not only a technical notion, but it is a rhetorIcal figure which acts in the realm of the knowing, the making of things. Things do not cal I up words, but words create the basis, the name creates the character, the word endangers the thing.

Just as words are symbols of ideas, so Ideas are symbols and token th i ngs. Thus, just as the operation of read! ng consists of gathering up the elements of the alphabet, which makes up words, so "knowingm is the operation by which we assemble the total aggregate of the elements of an object, in order to derive from this procedure a thoroughly adequate concepti on of such an object. I n regard to the prob I em of truth we may hence conjecture that the sages of anci ent Italy held that truth be identical with the act of mentally constructi ng truth. (Vi co 1710 87)

In the New Science the semiotic concept of phi lology is further defined:

Phi lolegy is the study of speech and it deals with words and their history, then shows their origin and progress, and so determines the ages of languages, thus revealing their properties, changes and convention. But since the idea of things are represented by words, phi lology must first address the history of things. Hence it appears that philologists study human governments, customs, laws, .l ns t l tu+l ons, intellectual disciplines and mechanical arts. (v t co 1744 432)

The descr i pti on of the garden and co I I ect ions of Lodol i given by Memmo are not sufficient te indicate that they were the result of this understanding of phi lology. To sustain It and to see phi lology appl ied to the art of architecture, It is crucial to analyze it in the works of Lodol i's pupi I, Gl ov an Battista Plranesl. Piranesi (1720-1778), a Venetian architect by his own definition, was the son of a stonemason from Piran, in the peninsula of Istrla, where are located the quarries of pietra istrjaoa, the white limestone out of which most of Venice edifices are sti I I bui It. Because of his interest 10 etching,

Plraoesi was attracted to the group which gathered around the British Consul and merchant of art, Joseph Smith (Vivian, 1971, p. 195 ff.). Plranesi was especially interested In the painting technique of Marco Ricci, a painter belonging to the artists pool of the Consul. Father Lodol i was also associated with this group, because of his interest in the printing matter, and the Consul Smith happened to be also a partner in the most active publ ishing house existing at that time, the one run by Pasqual I (Vlv I an, 1971, p. 198). It is very probab I e that Plranesi attended l.odol i's school, since the friar offered the opportuni ty to do so to any body interested in arch i tecture. In his book Memmo recalls that Lodol i received a copy of Della MaQnificenze ed Arch;tettura del Romani from "his friend and author, Cavalier Piranesi." (Memm o, 1833, 1,60) Memmo himself used the Calcografia

208

ed s

a on I es

sh i, 'co ier

r in -t-

one

i a

Piranesi to print the drawing by Canaletto showing the 'before' and the 'after' of his design for Prato della Valle in Padova.

Piranesi's work can be regarded as produced under the influence of Lodol its theory with a predominant nuance given by v lcots New Scjence. Two of the early works by Piranesi, Ant;chita Romane and Della Magnjficenza ed Archjtettyra dei Romani, are the graphical representations of Lodoli's juvenile passion for Roman architecture.

The plates of these works represent the Roman bui Idings with a rather pecul l ar technique. In them the photographic representation, a ~ era ottica technique is mixed with representation of fragments and of leaves of paper or stones or was tablets, showing measured drawings of details. These pletes seem to recal I the visual staging of the discussion of architecture conducted at Lodel i's place. In his garden and in his rooms, constant comparisons were set between the fragments and stones of his collections and the measured drawing of arch~tectural detai Is prepared by the Father for that purpose. Those discussions were not a setting of scenarios, but rather philological investigation done in an anatomical mode.

In 1974 P. J. r·1ariette, a French critic, strongly censured, the theories presented by Piranesi in the ~.1agoifjcenza. In a letter publ ished by the Gazette Ljterajre de l'Europe he negates the Egyptian-Etruscan I ineage of the origin of architecture and indicates his support for Wincklemann's point of view of Greek supremacy. Piranesi's answer to this criticism took the form of a publ ication composed of three distinct part~ The first one, Osseryazioni sopra la Lettre de M. Marl~ ••• (sic) is a confutation, point by pe l n+. of Mariette's critique. The second part is the Parere sulla Archltettura ••• , a Socratic dialogue presenting Piranesi's understanding of architecture. The third part. carrying the very long title of Trattato della intro= duzjone e del progresso del Ie Bel Ie Art; ;n Europa ne tempi antich; is a restatement of Etruscan primacy and creativity in relationship to Greek arts. The most significant among them is the short text of the dialogue which is a defense of the new architecture. This dialogue takes place between two architects. One of them is Protopiro and the other is Didascalo. Protopiro is a rigorist follower of Mi I izia. Laugier, and the ideal Greek austerity. Didascalo is the speaker for Piranesti and the new architectUre. Didascalo inveighs against the rlgorist using a strong language, In a fashion very similar to the one described by Memmo as pecul l ar to Lodol i in his discussion on architectural themes. The similarity is not only in the vehemence of the verbal expression but it is also in the content of the argument. An instance of it is the ironic image of a rigorist environment where the human kind lives In primitive windy huts, practicing the arts of hus-

209

bandry and stock raising, an image, this last one, used many times by Lodol I, (Memmo, 1833, I, 84)

Dl dascal o. the master, is defending Lodol i's reasoning from the abuse done of it by his rigorist pupils. There are three major points developed in the discussion which have as a common denominator a strong position against the non-professional mak~ng of architecture, the lack of poetics in the construction and construing done by amateurs. The first point is against the architects who do not know how to build and depend on the knowledge of the masons in the making of the structure and in the selecting of the materials of their buildings. The second pOint is that decorations should spring from the nature of the structure and the materials. The third point is that the architect is free In the selection of his formal references as long as he does not deform the nature of the construction and the technology related to the materials.

The positive result in architecture is achieved when there is a reconcil iation of the parts with the whole (a norm) which must be found and observed in al I the ornament generated for its (architecture) composition. This construction in architecture gives the f r'ee dom to the architect in his design since it is control led by the manner in which it becomes, that is the 'V l ch i an Guise,' or, as Didascalo states, "usage estab I i shes the law." Th i s~ reconci I i at i on is generated by a process of substitution of the building elements, the parts, within a ~. That is a harmonic translation of separate architectural elements of a work into another. This process of design is clearly recognized by Sergei Eisenstein, who in a short essay examines, using film making +echntque s, a quite famous Piranesi's etching, Carcere Oscuro. This etching can be considered the forebearer of the sequence of etchings titled Carcerj. This sequence, a late Piranesi work, presents a detailed Lodollan architecture. In these etchings the architecture representing the function Is derived from xilolgy and

I ithology and it is in natural form. For instance, plate number IX of the Carceri is a stage of pre-architecture where a stone-catenary and a timber queen post are the dominant elements in a defeat of perspective. Eisenstein in his construing of the visual dynamics of the nature of the wood and stone structures of the Carcere Oscuro, singles out a key principle of Lodol i's view of architecture.

"at the basis of al I the historical differentiation of the architectural image in the composition of ensembles of various epochs, there always I ies one and the same principle-the principle of the transition of separate parts of a work into one another, the principle of a harmony which resounds in different epochs." (Eisenstein 1977)

210

by

rse

mg

aek Ie and "e md Je'ree

the

conend osi-

i eh

a

n a Ieee-

enee

X of and lec-

naes

, .

This is lodel i's principle of subsi"i1"artiolnw ca-rled fo its extreme OOII1Iseql!llellllce by tllne «iireamns of Pi ral1lesi.

lO4tioI i'lS refllllsa' +o use iHflIe iOOnIIIS of .cod 1"edlloology vi-tlhin -the -techoolcgr of stame is flTIe Irefilllsal of a iIIIlei"ajpharical IP'"ocedure... but at fIhIe same -tirme all'll acllmolWloogememrt of tlhle IIlIlIlIiOfil of semniotics and "ted1loology. iLoOOl iI D iilrmiiits til'ne 5elllllallll-tic and refererrtial rei a-tioo of resembl ences of 1II'!e-talP-ifnor ito OOc:ora-ticl!1I,. todol i regards an archi tectllllre of mere re- 5emtb I alice... r iiga-OIIlIs as ii 111! t1hIe oooci ass i ce I or fancy as i n the barO'lIlIlle... <illS aim ardllii1tectilllre ilrn sTalemaTe, in vlhidn i1" is illllllpossible 10 achieve amy ikll'ftOl.W ft ~

lGool i. iilm seffhll~ Ihli1s tbtE'Oll')"/f follows 'ico's cycles of the evolutioo of I!nl!lllliillilli reasorrning. 'lico envisions ffTlroo cycles, thefirs1", t1hle passa.ge from ill reeson if 1rn£1 based on l!IllIe'faplluJf"s to a reason i ng based 00 1mlIefummJ, flne secomd "1!ihle passage frOO! lIII\e-tonomy to synecdodDe- and the fft.i!rttti ime Iil6ssage fram 5ynecoodue to irOlll't. (Vico 11«:460) Loclfo. i em~isiOll1ls ardr.irectl:llre Eqliliposed in the last ivo cycles. The union of hllmctioo iiffil!ll«i! relillresen-tairioo is the offsjpt'"ing of a lIIIlletOll1illlllical undersiarmdilrng.. The Sfoodbciai l!.JJil100rstanding is presellrt in loool i's lbeory lWiman line FOiIl'Oses a bU1 r If" errnv i ra1mien-t lIJIlloors-tood as a SIIJIIIIlII of par-ts and am armi-rectw.llre proo~ced !by the reuse of those pCil"'f-s flllrougn slJIbsf'i-tui"ilOO.. The ardlliTechral deTails tlhe Iil6rT, by its inclusion or exctusiam i!llw semnal!Titic and referential relations is ffIle place of tbe real aditiie¥ellemrt of me IllltJon of fllmcTlon and regreseoTation. Irony is the subtle \W!eapOO 10 criticize md!ersi-andiing.. the necessary 1"001 for blU1Udfrmg ibroWl¢ oostroyiing ..

In arcl!ni"tectur& !loGo" i advocates thai" conSTruction has to represen-t ffDe tedullclogical nOnlms of the used marteri ale Those nones can range fram physical to, socl et ones. In other wa-ds, archi1echre has TO be based on a lIIII!ei"onhmicaE production. that l1"s represen"taTlon is characterized by sE!lllllan"tic ClR.C refer-en-ti a~ rei a"tioo of causality made possible Ibr' -the presence of 1'he semanTic and syntactical cause, that Is The nai"erial and the srr-uchre selected. In metonany the iransfer of meaning is achieved by causal ify ex- congruency of use be"tween the represeniat-iOlli and The function be ii-t physical or lIIen-tal.

The second parT of The !Lodell f·tot-to has been +he mOST I nf I uen"ti as principle of modern archi"tecture in "the charismaTic relaTionships of lifo .... follow function" or nfunction follow form- (RykwEri" 1916). However, "the Lodo] ian concept in his original meaning is surprisingly sfmil ar to J .. Mukaroysky's sia-temenT tha-t "the object not only per-

forms, but al so signif Ies i-ts f unc+Ion," (Mukarovsky 1937: 237).

Ardti1"ecture not only performs but' signifies its function; I f depends parTia~ly on the coElective which assoct e+es certain functions with

buildings and parts of building~ and partially on individuals using bui Idings and parts of bui Idings for their personal goal~ Functions depend on both the building itself and those who use it in an interaction of four function horizons pointed out by t~ukarovsky. (1937> In the first horizon, buildings and building elements are determined by their immediate purpose, in the second by the historically mediated forms, and in the third by socially determined standards ( l,e, economic. material, symbol ic). The fourth one i~ the horizon of the individual function. In this last one the effort is to adhere to a strict respect of common functional ity. However, within this horizon violation of the functional scheme takes place. Such a violation of the functional understanding can generate a new functional developmen~ The task of an architectural study--the making of a bui Iding--is not only to design individual functions. but also to consciously manage and verify the individual and social horizons in which these functions are ref I ected.

To conclude this discussion on the union of function and representation in architectural production. one must restate that the task of an architectural study is the unification of constructing with construing, and such a union takes place in the architectural details where the violation of the functional canons can occur and thereby achieve a functional advancement. Technology understood as the sum of the architectural "analogies" rules the making of architectural artifacts. An architectural semioticlan should be the one who destroys to build, and should not act I ike a eunuch in a harem, that is, someone who knows who does It with whom and how many times, but has never done it himself. An architectural semiotlcian should be someone able to merge in an architectural production, the two spheres in which architecture as a semiotic device operates. An architecture which unifies the theor.ica with the practjca. An architecture in which the function is merged with the representation and it is the result of a productive thinking.

212

19 lnS 'ac-

In ly

j

omvct a-

ons

3-

: an J-

-e

Ie a -ch-

An and

n-

O) in as ~

NOTES

1.) Lodoli's language in the two outlines is full of new terms. Some of them are completely new, some of them are old but used with a new meaning. It is worthwhi Ie to list them in a matched order, to single them out, as binomical expressions.

1 ) ana logy ( a na I og i a) and appearances ( f as i )
2) function (funzione) and representati on
3) I itol ogy & xi 101 ogy and tech nogr aphy (tecnograf i a)
4) norms and systems
5) organic and property The role of those terms can be seen and understood in the context of Lodol i's outl ines. In the appendix in Frascari 1981 is given a new Engl ish translation of the two outl ines.

2.) The discussion on the use of the catenary representation in the Lodol ian design is much more complex and requires an analysis of the use of the catenary in the architectural studies developed by Pol en i in his Teatro d i F i I osof jaSper i menta lei n Padua. See B r usa tin (1 97 1)

213

ALGAROrr I.. Francesco

1757

IISaggi c sopr a I 'Arch i tetTura," Opere VarVe,. 'lot t.1n:lie Z <Venice: Venoz}

1764 "lettere sopr a l'Architectura," Opere, VO'ECLmae 6 (Ltvor no e Cortel finO

BRUSATI N, r<1anl i 0

1971 "t.a cupol a di S. Pi e+r-o che crolla,lf CQlllitroSpazjiQ,' Vot une 3, Number 3 .. PP. 20-32

1980 Venezfa Del SettecentQ, Stator Architetiyra, Terrfto[to (Turin: Einaudil

DANTE 7 AI i gh i er i

1304 fiDe Vulgari Et cquent l a-" La Opere Of Dante,. (Florence::

Semporad 192117 pp, 316-352

EISENSTEIN .. Sergei

1938 "Piranesi, or the fhttdity of Forms," OPp'ositiOfb Nirrter 1977:11 .. pp. 84-t09

FRASCAR I, ~1arco

1981

Sortes Arch i tect iii n the E i gh tee nth Century Veneto, Ph.D. Dissertation, University O'f Pennsylvania

1982 "Professional Use of Signs in Architecture," JQurna[ of ArchItectural Education, Vol ume 36" Number 2, PIl- 16-23

1983 nThe Tell-the-Tale Detai I," Semiotics J981" J. ~:f.. Deety and f-t. D. Lenhart,. edl ror s (New York: P'enum Press)

GAlILEI, Galileo

1638 Two New Sciences, U1adison: Universiiy of Wisconsin Press .. 1914}

r·£fo,f.10, An drea

214

~~-------------------------------- .. '-

lTer

..Qf -23

. ,

1833-34 E I ementj d'Arch j tettura lodol i ana, 2 vol umes (Zara:

Baratta) The first volume was first publ ished in Rome 1786.

~l1UKAROVSKY, Jan

1937 '~he place of the Aesthetic Function Among the Other Functions in Architecture, " Structure Sign and FuncilQn (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1978)

PEIRCE, Charles Sanders

1935-66

Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 volumes (Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press)

PIRANESI. Gianbattista

1757-69

Osseryazjoni •.• , (Rome) Ect in The Polemical Works (Lon don: Gregg, 1972)

RYf<1t'iERT. Joseph

1976

'~odol i on Function and Representation." Architectural Reyiew. 953

1980 The First 140derns (Cambr i dge, Massachusetts: M.I. T.

Press)

TORCELLAN, Gianfranco

1963 Una fjQura della Venezia Settecentesca: (Venice: Sanson l )

Andrea Memmo

VICO, Gianbattista

1731

"Aggiunta fatta dal Vlco alia sua eu+ob l cqr af l a;" Opere Fjlosofjche, pp. 39-54 (Florence: Sanson! 1971 )

1708 "De nostrl temporls studiorum ratione," Opere Fi 10sQ= fjche, pp. 787-860 (Florence: Sansoni 1971>

1710 "De antiquissima italorum sapt en+I a;" Qpere Fi 1050- fjche, pp. 55-131 (Florence: Sanson! 1971>

215

1744

VIVIAN, Francis

1971

"Principii d l Scienza Nuov a," Opere Fjlosofjche, pp.

377-701 (Florence: Sansoni 1971>

ie Console Smjth r~ercante e Col lezjonjsta (Vicenza:

Ner l Pcssa)

VITRUVIUS, Pol I io (~arcus)

1st c.b.c. Architectura, Textu ex Recensione Codicum Emendato cum Exercitationibus No+l sque ••• Joannis Poleni et Commentaris variorum Additis Nunc Primum Studi is Simonis Stratico (Udime: Mattluzzi,1825-30)

Analytique -

216

I

F

( I t-

J E

W E S 'I

p

A V D S i

A I I T

T P S

J F V E P P I