man, that letter by italian architects (no capital A here) is soooooo laughable...
i bet king renzo is smiling right now.
(can i be a geek? all the people you mentioned were born outside today's italy but they were all citizens of rome, because they were born inside the confines of the empire. after rome turned from a republic to an empire, all the people living within its dominion were granted the status of citizen...so they were not technically, foreigners)
(but you are, so don't think about coming around and steeling our jobs and women and plots of buildable land)
Sep 8, 05 11:40 am ·
·
(further geeking, I'm not all that sure about the notion of blanket Roman citizenship to all within the borders of the empire.)
first, Hadrian is not an architect, he was an Emperor -- of course you know this, so --- why would you bait us in this way???
as the folks at greatbuildings.com say:
Hadrian
(b. 76; d. 138)
An artist, intellectual and administrator, Hadrian succeeded the Emperor Trajan in 117 A.D. Upon his succession, he gave his interest in architecture full reign by becoming deeply involved with a series of buildings and urban expansions. Indeed, his continuous building activity is recorded in ancient writings and hundreds of dated buildings spread across the Roman empire.
Hadrian regularly founded, expanded and improved cities. The monumental buildings and cities generated in his time owe as much to his administrative and creative abilities as to the abilities of his unknown architects. He provided an enduring influence on architecture both through his artistic contributions and through his imperial patronage.
per essere Roma o essere Istanbul
(to be Rome or to be Istanbul)
[img]http://umut.net/Sizden/Fotograflar/Istanbul/Gravurler/images/Topkapi-sarayi_jpg.jpg
width=418[/img]
is that a choice?
db, there's no baiting going on. The truth is that we really don't know whether Hardian ever preformed as an architect or not, but there isn't doubt as to his making "artistic contributions." Was architecture a strict 'profession' back then, or was architecture sometimes 'practiced' by those that had the power and inclination to do so?
Did Hadrian read and study Virtuvius or even some (better?) architecture 'books' that we don't even know about anymore? The reality is that we don't know. What we do have is the evidence of the architecture itself.
What does greatbuildings.com say about Eutropia and Helena?
well, while I was not hoisting the folks at greatbuilings to new heights, could we then say the same as Hadrian about Peter Lewis and Thomas Krens? great patrons sure, but credible as architects? and yes, the profession has changed much over this period of time, but let's not neglect the folks way back when that were doing the stuff we think of today as architecture rather than pointing a finger and saying "there, bigger." Hadrian as architect is akin to calling Plato a scientist -- sure the arguement could be mede, but why would you?
(Rita: with the greatest respect, I'd love to know what you dream at night- architectural phantasmagorias!!! perhaps we could make that into another thread. You are ... PRODIGIOUS... our jewel in Philadelphia - keep up the mind-blowing work. Sorry I can't contribute anything intelligent to your erudite thread...)
Sep 8, 05 1:33 pm ·
·
I wonder what constituted a "freeman." Where there "freewoman" citizens too?
db, again, the reality is that we really don't know to what extent Hadrian "designed" any buildings. That Hadrian was Emperor supercedes his "practicing" any other "occupation." A good example would be the relationship between Schinkel and Prince (later King) Friedrich Wilhelm IV (I think I'm using the right name) where one of the Prince's sketches is almost exactly what Charlottenhof is today. Yes, Schinkel is the architect of Charlottenhof, but Friedrich Wilhelm IV is Charlottenhof's original designer. It's strange though because Friedrich Wilhelm actually "couldn't" be an architect because that was beneath his station. Hardian could well have designed a lot of buildings, but for someone back then to call him an architect may have at the same time amounted to insulting his (higher) station.
Today we call the designer of a building the architect, even though there are many more people (including other architects) involved in the development and production of architecture.
does a sketch constitute evidence for "architecture"
it is a real question that I don't have an answer for
Sep 8, 05 1:50 pm ·
·
The sketch by Prince Friedrich Wihlem IV is certainly evidence of an architectural design. The building that the Prince's sketch ultimately manifest is certainly architecture.
The Prince sketched lots of architectural designs, and, had he the money, he likely would have had them all built.
Ludwig II had tons of money (the Wittelbach Treasury in Munich is still the most valuable in Europe), and "his" (reenactionary) architectur(ism) did get built. Yes, Ludwig employed several architects, but hardly a design (sketch/drawing) got by without his changes and ultimate approval.
so is Ludwig the architect or the patron? I really do think there is a difference -- especially in regad to today's clients. Maybe if he didn't draw this or that or go down and point to this or that and say this or that then he shouldn't be considered as such.
And stiull given all that (and rita's obvious objections) still how now do we account for today's uber-clients?
Sep 8, 05 2:27 pm ·
·
Ludwig was not an architect but he was more than a patron. He was a (very wealthy) King, and his actions were very much a studied reenactment of past kings/rulers. Ludwig set out to manifest culture via the arts (as opposed to manifesting wars). That Ludwig was very interested in manifesting architecture is without question.
I don't what you think my "obvious objections" are, and now you change the subject to today's uber-clients.
The original point of this thread was to open up the notion that "Italian" culture is not necessarily homogeneously "Italian."
really, I though the original topic was your question that since Hadrian was born in Spain but was also the recognized "architect" (coordinator? emperor-in-charge?) whether he should be considerd an ITalian architect.
IT's a question of identity.
to whit I raised the question of whether patronage counts as authorship.
to which you replied with regard to Ludwig etc (who wasd a patron -- though a very very rich one)
to which I countered with contemporary wealthy clients, asking whether they too should be counted as architects?
(the answer seems obvious)
so what's your prob?
as to the original post -- architecture has been global for so many years why do we even have to go over this?! (for the old days it was a different story though -- see above)
db- i'd hazard a guess that rita's original post has to do with today's news item about italians' recent objections to non-italian architects working in italy.
(off topic): has anyone visited King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein or Linderhof or Herrenchiemsee. (I haven't: just seen them by pictures) Aren't they a bit kitschy in an early Hollywood way? Over the top. Pastiche. although I wd love to visit the hall of mirrors in Herrenchiemsee with all the candles in the candelabra lit. (forgive spelling errors) Ludwig may have been a genuine king and patron but his works seem to me to lack authenticity. Early disneyworld theme parks.
Sep 8, 05 3:56 pm ·
·
db, I think you're confusing the issue here by bringing the latter-day notions of patronage into it when the architecture of artistic emperors and kings is involved.
Yes, this thread is a reaction to today's news item.
John, Ludwig II's architecture is no doubt aesthetically over the top, but in terms of craftsmanship, it is all top notch. It is fair to say that Ludwig's architecture inspired a lot of kitsch. Reenactionary Architecturism addresses the disticntion between popular sentimentality and reenactionary architecturism, and Ludwig II's architecture is a main point in that distinction.
I've been to Neuschwanstein and Linderhof (1976), but never to Herrenchiensee.
Hadrian and Augustus provide an interesting instance of re-enactment. Hadrian's mausoleum (now the Castel Sant'Angelo) adopts Augustus' mausoleum as its direct precursor. But Hadrian undermnines Augustus' centrality by his own treatment of circular forms. In his Tivoli villa (a kind of formal laboratory), circular spaces proliferate, and centrality is made a commodity. Vitruvius would be much closer to the centrality of Augustus (his patron) than Hadrian.
I have no problem with considering Hadrian an architect.
From my reading of Gibbon, wasn't one of the Roman emperors (Septimius Severus?) an African wrestler?
BTW rita, VERY interesting about Schinkel and Charlottenhoff. ref?
Sep 8, 05 5:43 pm ·
·
Hadrian had his tomb built because the tomb of Augustus had no spaces for an emperor.
Hadrian's Villa can also be seen as a "laboratory" of reenactment in that different parts of the villa are named for and perhaps even meant to evoke other places within the empire.
Check out the emperor Elegabalus as a latter-day Nero and then some. He had the Sessorian Palace built, which was a little Roman theme park in that besides the Palace there was also a circus and and amphitheater. What's left of the Sessorian Palace compound is at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme. A hundred or so years after Elegabalus, Helena took up residence at the Sessorian Palace.
Sep 8, 05 5:48 pm ·
·
Right now I can't pinpoint where the Prince FW IV sketch is published. It might be in Schinkel's Berlin or within an article by Rand Carter on the Palace on the Acropolis which was published around 25 years ago in The Journal of Architectural Historians. I have a bunch of photocopies of English and German articles on Schinkel, and I haven't looked at these in like eight or more years. Sorry I can't be of more assistance right now.
Sep 8, 05 5:59 pm ·
·
Realize that Schloss Charlottenhof is not that Court Gardener's House and Roman Baths that are nearby.
No, that's very helpful, thanks. I delivered a paper a few weeks ago on genealogy, in which the relationship between Hadrian+Augustus figured, as did the Schloss Charlottenhoff.
Both mausolea were also editing devices for the imperial family: in his will, Augustus excluded some of his family members from being buried there.
There's that strange circular structure they call the 'park rotunda' at Hadrian's Villa which may have been a mausoleum for Antoninus, although I like to see it as an experiment for the Pantheon, which it has similarities to.
Interestingly, Giulio Carlo Argan was Mayor of Rome in the late 1970s. He was co-author of Michelangelo Architecto, and (I believe) instrumental in manifesting the project/exhibit Roma Interrotta.
Maybe Roma Interrotta is really just still going on.
And here I thought Hadrian had an architect working for him -- someone whose name began with a "P". I do remember hearing that his predecessor's archtiect told him to "go make his onions somewhere else".
Hadrian almost certainly had architects working for him. However, it seems likely that Hadrian exerted some degree of 'creative control' that placed him beyond just a patron. Funny quote.
Hadrian was born in Spain
Hadrian is often credited with being the architect of the Pantheon. Should he then be considered a foreign architect as far as Italy is concerned?
Maxentius was perhaps born in Syria, like his mother Eutropia; his father Maximian was born in (today's) Serbia.
Constantine too was born in Serbia, although his mother Helena was born in (today's) Turkey.
The architecture of Eutropia and Helena had an astounding effect on Italy.
this damn Foreign Office Architects...lol, and this migration thing...will it ever stop????, Rita seems ur very busy today...
man, that letter by italian architects (no capital A here) is soooooo laughable...
i bet king renzo is smiling right now.
(can i be a geek? all the people you mentioned were born outside today's italy but they were all citizens of rome, because they were born inside the confines of the empire. after rome turned from a republic to an empire, all the people living within its dominion were granted the status of citizen...so they were not technically, foreigners)
(but you are, so don't think about coming around and steeling our jobs and women and plots of buildable land)
(further geeking, I'm not all that sure about the notion of blanket Roman citizenship to all within the borders of the empire.)
Rita--
first, Hadrian is not an architect, he was an Emperor -- of course you know this, so --- why would you bait us in this way???
as the folks at greatbuildings.com say:
Hadrian
(b. 76; d. 138)
An artist, intellectual and administrator, Hadrian succeeded the Emperor Trajan in 117 A.D. Upon his succession, he gave his interest in architecture full reign by becoming deeply involved with a series of buildings and urban expansions. Indeed, his continuous building activity is recorded in ancient writings and hundreds of dated buildings spread across the Roman empire.
Hadrian regularly founded, expanded and improved cities. The monumental buildings and cities generated in his time owe as much to his administrative and creative abilities as to the abilities of his unknown architects. He provided an enduring influence on architecture both through his artistic contributions and through his imperial patronage.
per essere Roma o essere Istanbul
(to be Rome or to be Istanbul)
[img]http://umut.net/Sizden/Fotograflar/Istanbul/Gravurler/images/Topkapi-sarayi_jpg.jpg
width=418[/img]
is that a choice?
link
db, there's no baiting going on. The truth is that we really don't know whether Hardian ever preformed as an architect or not, but there isn't doubt as to his making "artistic contributions." Was architecture a strict 'profession' back then, or was architecture sometimes 'practiced' by those that had the power and inclination to do so?
Did Hadrian read and study Virtuvius or even some (better?) architecture 'books' that we don't even know about anymore? The reality is that we don't know. What we do have is the evidence of the architecture itself.
What does greatbuildings.com say about Eutropia and Helena?
well, while I was not hoisting the folks at greatbuilings to new heights, could we then say the same as Hadrian about Peter Lewis and Thomas Krens? great patrons sure, but credible as architects? and yes, the profession has changed much over this period of time, but let's not neglect the folks way back when that were doing the stuff we think of today as architecture rather than pointing a finger and saying "there, bigger." Hadrian as architect is akin to calling Plato a scientist -- sure the arguement could be mede, but why would you?
from wikipedia:
After AD 212, all freemen in the Empire were granted citizenship from the Constitutio Antoniniana.
(Rita: with the greatest respect, I'd love to know what you dream at night- architectural phantasmagorias!!! perhaps we could make that into another thread. You are ... PRODIGIOUS... our jewel in Philadelphia - keep up the mind-blowing work. Sorry I can't contribute anything intelligent to your erudite thread...)
I wonder what constituted a "freeman." Where there "freewoman" citizens too?
db, again, the reality is that we really don't know to what extent Hadrian "designed" any buildings. That Hadrian was Emperor supercedes his "practicing" any other "occupation." A good example would be the relationship between Schinkel and Prince (later King) Friedrich Wilhelm IV (I think I'm using the right name) where one of the Prince's sketches is almost exactly what Charlottenhof is today. Yes, Schinkel is the architect of Charlottenhof, but Friedrich Wilhelm IV is Charlottenhof's original designer. It's strange though because Friedrich Wilhelm actually "couldn't" be an architect because that was beneath his station. Hardian could well have designed a lot of buildings, but for someone back then to call him an architect may have at the same time amounted to insulting his (higher) station.
Today we call the designer of a building the architect, even though there are many more people (including other architects) involved in the development and production of architecture.
that you cannot contribute anything contributes many things
does a sketch constitute evidence for "architecture"
it is a real question that I don't have an answer for
The sketch by Prince Friedrich Wihlem IV is certainly evidence of an architectural design. The building that the Prince's sketch ultimately manifest is certainly architecture.
The Prince sketched lots of architectural designs, and, had he the money, he likely would have had them all built.
Ludwig II had tons of money (the Wittelbach Treasury in Munich is still the most valuable in Europe), and "his" (reenactionary) architectur(ism) did get built. Yes, Ludwig employed several architects, but hardly a design (sketch/drawing) got by without his changes and ultimate approval.
so is Ludwig the architect or the patron? I really do think there is a difference -- especially in regad to today's clients. Maybe if he didn't draw this or that or go down and point to this or that and say this or that then he shouldn't be considered as such.
And stiull given all that (and rita's obvious objections) still how now do we account for today's uber-clients?
Ludwig was not an architect but he was more than a patron. He was a (very wealthy) King, and his actions were very much a studied reenactment of past kings/rulers. Ludwig set out to manifest culture via the arts (as opposed to manifesting wars). That Ludwig was very interested in manifesting architecture is without question.
I don't what you think my "obvious objections" are, and now you change the subject to today's uber-clients.
The original point of this thread was to open up the notion that "Italian" culture is not necessarily homogeneously "Italian."
really, I though the original topic was your question that since Hadrian was born in Spain but was also the recognized "architect" (coordinator? emperor-in-charge?) whether he should be considerd an ITalian architect.
IT's a question of identity.
to whit I raised the question of whether patronage counts as authorship.
to which you replied with regard to Ludwig etc (who wasd a patron -- though a very very rich one)
to which I countered with contemporary wealthy clients, asking whether they too should be counted as architects?
(the answer seems obvious)
so what's your prob?
as to the original post -- architecture has been global for so many years why do we even have to go over this?! (for the old days it was a different story though -- see above)
db- i'd hazard a guess that rita's original post has to do with today's news item about italians' recent objections to non-italian architects working in italy.
well yeah sure but ok and then still and yeah yet till before now yet YOU will until otherwise
(of course)
(off topic): has anyone visited King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein or Linderhof or Herrenchiemsee. (I haven't: just seen them by pictures) Aren't they a bit kitschy in an early Hollywood way? Over the top. Pastiche. although I wd love to visit the hall of mirrors in Herrenchiemsee with all the candles in the candelabra lit. (forgive spelling errors) Ludwig may have been a genuine king and patron but his works seem to me to lack authenticity. Early disneyworld theme parks.
db, I think you're confusing the issue here by bringing the latter-day notions of patronage into it when the architecture of artistic emperors and kings is involved.
Yes, this thread is a reaction to today's news item.
John, Ludwig II's architecture is no doubt aesthetically over the top, but in terms of craftsmanship, it is all top notch. It is fair to say that Ludwig's architecture inspired a lot of kitsch. Reenactionary Architecturism addresses the disticntion between popular sentimentality and reenactionary architecturism, and Ludwig II's architecture is a main point in that distinction.
I've been to Neuschwanstein and Linderhof (1976), but never to Herrenchiensee.
Hadrian and Augustus provide an interesting instance of re-enactment. Hadrian's mausoleum (now the Castel Sant'Angelo) adopts Augustus' mausoleum as its direct precursor. But Hadrian undermnines Augustus' centrality by his own treatment of circular forms. In his Tivoli villa (a kind of formal laboratory), circular spaces proliferate, and centrality is made a commodity. Vitruvius would be much closer to the centrality of Augustus (his patron) than Hadrian.
I have no problem with considering Hadrian an architect.
From my reading of Gibbon, wasn't one of the Roman emperors (Septimius Severus?) an African wrestler?
Didnt architects use to get killed if their buildings fell in Roman/Greek/Roman times? Kinda made you want to study your structures, huh?
BTW rita, VERY interesting about Schinkel and Charlottenhoff. ref?
Hadrian had his tomb built because the tomb of Augustus had no spaces for an emperor.
Hadrian's Villa can also be seen as a "laboratory" of reenactment in that different parts of the villa are named for and perhaps even meant to evoke other places within the empire.
Check out the emperor Elegabalus as a latter-day Nero and then some. He had the Sessorian Palace built, which was a little Roman theme park in that besides the Palace there was also a circus and and amphitheater. What's left of the Sessorian Palace compound is at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme. A hundred or so years after Elegabalus, Helena took up residence at the Sessorian Palace.
Right now I can't pinpoint where the Prince FW IV sketch is published. It might be in Schinkel's Berlin or within an article by Rand Carter on the Palace on the Acropolis which was published around 25 years ago in The Journal of Architectural Historians. I have a bunch of photocopies of English and German articles on Schinkel, and I haven't looked at these in like eight or more years. Sorry I can't be of more assistance right now.
Realize that Schloss Charlottenhof is not that Court Gardener's House and Roman Baths that are nearby.
No, that's very helpful, thanks. I delivered a paper a few weeks ago on genealogy, in which the relationship between Hadrian+Augustus figured, as did the Schloss Charlottenhoff.
Both mausolea were also editing devices for the imperial family: in his will, Augustus excluded some of his family members from being buried there.
There's that strange circular structure they call the 'park rotunda' at Hadrian's Villa which may have been a mausoleum for Antoninus, although I like to see it as an experiment for the Pantheon, which it has similarities to.
Give them no credit - they were all trying to copy Egypt - but changed a couple things as to not get busted for copyright infringements.
(thanks John)
Interestingly, Giulio Carlo Argan was Mayor of Rome in the late 1970s. He was co-author of Michelangelo Architecto, and (I believe) instrumental in manifesting the project/exhibit Roma Interrotta.
Maybe Roma Interrotta is really just still going on.
And here I thought Hadrian had an architect working for him -- someone whose name began with a "P". I do remember hearing that his predecessor's archtiect told him to "go make his onions somewhere else".
Hadrian almost certainly had architects working for him. However, it seems likely that Hadrian exerted some degree of 'creative control' that placed him beyond just a patron. Funny quote.
Is Bush Nero?
jj: nero is a program you burn CD's with.. duh!
hadrian was kind of like donald trump of his time..
everyone complained about how big his buildings were.. and how he was just an egotistical pig..
but he loved the Bithynian boy
why does everry thread have to be about bush?
some of us just don't care about him very much.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.