“For instance, the line or curve of the edge of a leaf, may be accurately given to the edge of a stone, without rendering the stone in the least like a leaf, or suggestive of a leaf; and this the more fully, because the lines of nature are alike in all her works; simpler or richer in combination, but the same in character; and when they are taken out of their combinations, it is impossible to say from which of her works they have been borrowed, their universal property being ever-varying curvature in the most subtle and subdued transitions, with peculiar expressions of motion, elasticity, or dependence.”
While Ruskin advocates for the hand-wrought stonework of the Gothic period and for applied ornament, he seems also to set up a moral argument within architectural pedagogy that may, with only minor revision, be re-fashioned into modernist asceticism: honesty of materials, the primacy of abstract line over color and shade, and the separation between ornament and structure.
Ruskin's reductive systematization need only be moved slightly to the right to remove ornament entirely and proceed with full-on abstraction.
By creating a hierarchy of acceptable materials of ornament (1. Abtract lines. 2. Forms of Earth...10. Foliage.), he seems to privilege the reduction of nature to its most pure abstract form over the detail of its intricacies. He notes for instance that the tree stem is categorized above, and separate from , its foliage as, "It is the dressing of the garden. And, therefore, where nothing else can be used for ornament, vegetation may."
Ruskin's description of animate abstract line also seems to prefigure the interest in organicism and emergent forces of the last decade.
Images; top to bottom: Victor Horta Residence, J.M.W. Turner's Tintern Abbey, Art Nouveau character set, Bridge at Central Park by John Veaux.
No comments:
Post a Comment