By Arif Javed
Every
form of art has a period within its history that can be considered its
Classical period. The classical works of architecture, and perhaps of all art,
oftentimes serve as a source of inspiration, as a point of departure, or occasionally as a set of ideals to completely reject. It is particularly
interesting to me when the rigid principles of the classical orders are
re-interpreted and re-presented in a strikingly new way. Additionally, it is
also fascinating that though the definition of the classical styles will never
change, the language of these orders can be deployed in vastly different ways
depending on the time period, the goal of the architect, or any number of
variables. In our last lecture on Contemporary European Architecture, I noticed
two uses of the classical that produced completely different end results:
Schinkel’s Neoclassical Altes Museum and Albert Speer’s Zeppelinfield and other
Nazi works.
Karl Friedrich Schinkel was a Prussian architect whose genius
lay in his ability to work in every architectural style of his time and those
that came before while managing to avoid the danger of creating poorly blended
pastiches. Schinkel was tied with the royal family of Prussia which in a way
gave him charge of the task of throttling Germany into an architectural
competition of the early 19th century against England and France. He
did this by working in the
prevalent styles of those countries of the era: the Neoclassical and the
Picturesque. Schinkel’s greatest work is usually thought to be the Altes
Museum, an art museum in the monumental heart of Berlin. To me, Schinkel’s use
of the Neoclassical language in the Altes Museum is completely unique and
expressive, which I think is an impressive feat for a work so heavily derived
from the precedent of the classics. The front of Schinkel’s Museum is a clear
use of the Ionic order, though Doric pilasters anchor the façade on each side.
Interestingly, any use of the Classical orders ends after that, the sides and
back of the Altes look, to me, like stripped down versions of the Neoclassical.
Trachtenberg mentions how in the Berlin National Theater that Schinkel designed
he reinterpreted Renaissance-like pilaster orders through the functionalist
lens of a 19th Century architect. I think this is also the way
Schinkel treated the sides of the Altes museum, he kept the sides functionalist
and simple to lend gravitas to the Ionic façade. However, the most impressive
part of Schinkel’s use of the Classical language was his considerations of the
scale of the building. The building is set in the heart of Berlin, and could
have easily fallen to the mold of the monumentality of the Berlin Cathedral or
the Royal Palace. However, Schinkel created the building at what can be
described as a human scale, as opposed to a monumental one. Using the classical
at such a scale avoids using the rigidity of classical order and proportion to
a psychologically imposing degree. By moving away from the grandeur of
monumentality to the gravitas of the familiar and human scale, I think
Schinkel’s museum achieves its goal of becoming a calming and dignified space
for the appreciation of majestic works of art.
Schinkel’s
use of the classical language to create a compelling and original composition
was augmented by his close attention to scale and proportion. Interestingly,
these same attributes of the classical style, particularly scale, are what
Hitler’s chief architect, Albert Speer, used as the principal drivers behind
the structures that he erected to be the stages and platforms of the Nazi
party. The goal of this Nazi architecture was to use the buildings as a form of
propaganda; thus the architecture had to both embody the ideals of the Nazi
party as well as impose these ideals upon the public. To do this, Speer looked
towards Greco-Roman influences; Greek temples are a clear synthesis of the
cultural, political, and psychological ideas of a nation into an architectural
order. I think Speer and Hitler thought that by bending this language to their
own ends they could use it to shape the ideas of the nation they wanted to
create. Thus, Speer took the classical and used it on a massive and grandiosely
monumental scale. He stripped away the ornamentation, generally leaving only
the starkly clad masses arranged in classical dependencies. An example of
Speer’s work is the Zeppelinfeld, a massive building that is part of the Nazi
Rallying Grounds complex. The Zeppelinfeld is absolutely done in a classical
style, but it is free of any ornament. Elements such as the cornice detail and
the rhythmic colonnade of the façade solidify this classical language. The
Zeppelinfeld is certainly not done at a human scale; in contrast to the Altes
Museum the works of Speer are scaled to be suited for large military
processions, rallies, etc. While the pleasant, human scale of the Altes allows
the occupants to be in a calm communion with the space, the massive scale of
the Zeppelinfeld keeps the occupants in awe of the space at all times. The
stark, functionalist masses are meant to be always oppressive on the psyche of
the viewer, always forcing them to acknowledge the power of Hitler’s regime.
Though
the essential objective of Speer’s work was oppression, and though the motives
of all Nazi architecture was obviously terrible, it is genuinely intriguing how
he interpreted the language of the classical in such a profoundly imposing way.
Both Speer and Schinkel clearly thought about the psychological and mental
effects of using something as familiar as the classical style for their work.
They both realized that by keeping or getting rid of ornament and by managing
scale, order, and proportion they could use the classical to their own goals. However,
despite these possible similarities they both channeled the same influences
into completely different work, which to me truly shows the beauty of
architecture as well as the power of the architect.
 |
| Zeppelinfield, Speer |
 |
| Altes Museum, Schinkel |
Sources
Trachtenberg, Marvin. "Architecture: From Prehistory to Post-Modernism/The Western Tradition." New York University. 1986. Print. 04 September 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment