horror vacui, amor vacui
andrei constantinescu

translated by maria constantinescu

< summary

 
We will balance two ways of making architecture, one belonging to the late Middle Age, the other belonging to the 20th century and especially to its end, excluding the time spent between the two periods and the inherent metamorphoses and focusing upon two types of discourse.
We will deal with some aspects that make the comparison possible. More precisely, both architectures practice a certain form of terror upon the lecturer (non-architect). In exchange, they are situated to the antipodes, on the one hand because one of them exhibits a semantic richness bordering on the excess (the architecture of the late Middle Age), while the other often frustrates by an apparent senselessness. On the other hand, they differ in what concerns “theory”. 20th century architect sometimes writes to explain his creation, while the medieval master uses nothing but recipes. We will also deal with this aspect.

 
 

architecture
In the case of medieval cathedrals there are purely narrative articulations, full of obvious meanings. Sculptural representations of men and beasts in “rounde bosse” and “bas-relief” cover not only gables and frises but also medallions, corniches, capitals. Some types of subjects return repeatedly: Christ surrounded by apostles (usually on the main portal’s gable), doomsday, the wise virgins, and the mad virgins, Nativity. Also represented are recollections of Oriental pilgrimage  - real or fantastic beasts: camels and lions, elephants and dromedaries etc. this “flood of thought and its stacking into image” (Huizinga) is a general characteristics of the late Middle Age. Nothing remains shapeless or without adornment. Forms surpass the idea, drown it. Horror vacui, fear of emptiness, of vacuum is reigning.

In exchange, the architecture of the end of this century and particularly the deconstructivist architecture put us before some pure geometrical “syntaxes”, “semantics” (i.e. the explanations) being offered by the authors in the discourses accompanying their creations. Emptiness is desired, horror vacui becomes amor vacui.


 

terror
Eisenman considers that late Middle Age architecture had a strongly mediatic character, while contemporary architecture would be feeble media, though we could object here by the advertising on the “narval” buildings. However, there is a common point in the two types of architecture: the psychological effect they have upon their spectator.

The adornments of the cathedrals act by terror upon the medieval men whose imaginary is whipped with / over dwelled by representations related to death, to Doomsday, to the fate of the sinners. Sculptors aided their preacher fellows, if they did not project their own fears. The propensity of the artists decorating every architectural element and this semantic richness is in itself terrifying, is for tragic or fearful subjects like the representations of the ordeals destined to sinners in inferno. Almost all the architectural elements stylobate, archivolts, etc. Show hideous devils, strange monsters that torture and tear.

We must not forget, on the other hand, that we are in a period dominated by the cruelties of Inquisition and crusades, and that 1348 is marked by the great plague epidemic in Europe. The idea of death is now more strongly imposed than ever. The figure of death is plastically represented in the form of the Apocalypse: knight riding over heaps of fallen human bodies, or like an angel with bat wings descending from skies like in the Campo Santo necropolis (the 13th century) in Pisa. Not to speak about the skeleton riding armed with a scythe or about the macabre dance representations. All this arsenal meant to bring cold shivers, to stone, to arise panic is used by the religious thinking dominating in that time and is transformed into morals, into momento mori. Terror in the 20th century architecture is not specific only to its end. Nevertheless, being obvious, I will remind only the terrorist architecture nourished by fascist/communist ideologies.

The terror in the contemporary architecture I will refer to is of another type, tormenting reason and imaginary, this time frustrating the innocent lecturer by lack of sense, of reminding of the collective imaginary, of great stories and myths.
The architect has his own story, his own obsessions, fears and agonies at least, which he imposes instead of the great “recits”. Representative would be Parc de la Villette in which Tchumi superimposes three different systems: a system of points, one of lines and one of surfaces. Each has its own logic, known only by his author, they all being perfect in themselves. When superimposed, the three systems interfere by creating zones of coexistence of the three systems - without conflict but without harmony. It is a relativism characteristic for the end of the 20th century, situated at the antipode of the “certitudes” of the 11th- 14th.


 

theory
An innocent lecturer lives therefore the experience as coherent as confuse of spaces being frustrated from an imagistic understanding. E., for instance, inspires from the modern molecular biology to build the Bio-Centrum in Frankfurt. The architect is forced to explicate his work by a discourse that will belong to it.

If we return to the late Middle Age centuries, we will see that even then the architect makes use of a discourse, but insufficiently coagulated, because he has faith and canon. The theory is implicit, is minimal and is included in the canon. There are many experiments, but the intention of the author seemed to be that of writing a handbook for his apprentices. However, what we found there are notes and sketches with very concise explanative legends which make the book almost useless in the absence of an oral commentary. It seems to be rather a collection of recipes for their working conditions. Art seems to consist in isolated observations waiting for a unifying theory. But the absence of an unifying theory does not weaken the unitary character of the works, which is encountered only in epochs of deep convictions, like that after year 1000.

Today, however, theory plays the main role, it is taken as inspiration source and legitimization. In exchange, experiments develop in peripheral zones. This comes, among others, from the fact that in architecture experiment is much more expensive that in the other arts. The 20th century architect joins different ideologies, if he does not even propose himself new systems of social organization, becoming a prophet (le Corbusier). On the other hand, he is no more closed in the canon but he looks for the opening towards new fields. “Theories take places of canon, theories are the new tradition”- John Hanckock. The death of the great recits, of the great ideologies, of the constructive traditions, of the imagistic archetypes provokes a vacuum. Now horror vacui manifests ideological and theoretical fields determining ardent search in other zones of knowledge.

top
summary