Ruskins Influence on Victorian Architecture - Article Example

Ruskin’s Influence on Victorian Architecture Presented Ruskin’s Influence on Victorian Architecture John Ruskin is regarded as one of the most important and influential art critics in the nineteenth century. In addition, he was a social critic through his artistic works. Ruskin portrayed a huge set of gifts at his disposal, which made him a genius of many trades not only in architecture, all of which contributed to his transformations in artistic works. Ruskin was a geologist, an etymologist, mythologist, botanist and an environmentalist. For many years, theorists in Victoria believed that a building not only conveyed meanings, but also communicate these meanings in deep precision.1 The meanings communicated vary widely from the society, past, present, the architect, occupants, materials, man, God, its functions, among other meanings, all encoded in its form. However, most Victorian authors believed that between the Middle Ages and the 19th century, the unique architecture in Victoria lost its identity and meaning, and had become dishonest, empty and irrelevant.1 Ruskin was called a prophet and a true polymath with thorough knowledge of the bible, which he deeply knew, and intimately meditated by heart.2 He was later to use this knowledge to reform this art that had lost meaning. Due to this immense understanding, Ruskin sought to know more and understand the world around him, and would later become a reformer to remedy the evils of a “dissolutely reforming and vulgarly manufacturing age.”3 Ruskin saw an England that had sacrificed, and ignored the love of man, and had embraced the love of wealth and progress, which was honesty to self interests. 1. Kaufman N.E., (1982). The weight and vigor of their masses: mid Victorian churches and the lamp of Power in the Ruskin Polygon. Manchester: John Dixon Hunt., p30 2. Atwood, S.E., (2006). “A cowslip form an oxlip and a blackthorn form a white:” Ruskin’s educational; philosophy and Fors Clavigera. UMI, Ann Arbor, 48106-1346., p1 3. Craig, D.M., (2004). Naves and Nukes: John Ruskin as “Augustinian” social theorist? Journal of Religious Ethics, 32(2); pp325-356. Ruskin remarked that the world had forgotten and done way with its soul, and has to be brought back to the things that determined its peace and coexistence.4 It was due to the immorality in the society that Ruskin developed a moral philosophy, which he taught through architectural works and drawings. For example, he likened buildings with sentiment beings remarking that the wall should be “like an organized creature”, which answer, and can end in living energetically. Generally, Ruskin remarked how wonderful it would be to read buildings, and how more wonderful it would be, if these buildings could speak to people.5 Ruskin aim was to transform the society in England through his deep moral teachings, and love for nature that represented coexistence and harmony. His “logical drives through deep religious impulses was not a clerical career, but was more of a prophetic one”.6 Through his artistic work Ruskin, continued to advocate social reforms, though he declined any pretensions of leadership.6 To explain his simplicity and value for home as representing families, Ruskin had much if his paintings on domestic architecture. Ruskin had a love for picturesque, the essence of a house as a home, and the idea that a home has to be built by the inhabitants.7 Largely, Ruskin opened a new dimension in artistic work where he saw artistic work, and economic life as mutually reinforcing realms of human entity, either for good or bad, depending on the social relationships that govern the two.8 His treasure on unity and aesthetic is found when he defended the gothic style in terms of its appreciation for higher and lower nature of all things.9 4. Masterfield, J. (1920). Ruskin in Ruskin the prophet, Ed. Whitehouse London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, p17 5. Ruskin J., (1903). The works of John Ruskin, ed. E.T. Cook and A. Weddeburn. London, p73 6. Alexander, E. (1973). John Ruskin and the modern temper. Columbia: Ohio state University Press, p11 7. Cheshire B.(2004). A Review of Rebecca Daniels and Geoff Brandwood, eds “Ruskin and Architecture” (Spire Books, 2003) and A.W.N. Pugin, “Contrasts and the true principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture” with introduction by Timothy Britain-Catlin (Spire Books, 2003). Journal of William Morris Studies, 15(4); pp176-179 8. Wlliams., R., (1983). Culture and society; 1780-1950. NY: Columbia University Press, p139-140 9. Williiams. R.,(1972). “John Ruskin.” In the Encyclopedia of philosophy, edited by Paul Edwards, ed 7, NY: MacMill, p234-325 His love for unity and purpose in praising the Gothic artistic work portrays Ruskin’s perception of architecture as a way that a society has to be recognized with, and have symbolic meanings to the specific society. It’s this quality that he would later pass to the Victorian architecture, influencing how houses were being constructed in Victoria. Ruskin described Gothic craftwork as constructing full-fledged model of ‘social practices,’ which enables individuals to develop virtues in pursuit of “internal goods,” and other “standards of excellence” of their artistic work.10In other words, Ruskin love for this unity is a representation of the social impacts that any artistic work should have in impacting virtues, or forming a better society. To Ruskin, without the “balancing sense of a unifying form” observed from, and proved by the Gothic artistic work, the beauty of such Gothic cathedrals would revert to be mere heaps, with no meaning to the society. 11It is this uniformity, and form in gothic artistic works and cathedrals that present the good economic conditions and social relationships.12 This was achieved through sustaining social practices that encourage perfection in workers, and lead to moral and accurate judgments of their works by others.13 Ruskin believed in the value of human energy input inartistic work to make any architectural work perfect, as represented by the Gothic artistic work. Ruskin’s moral aesthetic theory grew and changed along with his thoughts, and his experiences. Ruskin’s moral aesthetic was portrayed in his publications the seven lamps of Architecture (1849), and the Stones of Venice (1851). 10. Maclntyre, A., (1984). After virtue. 2nd ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, p187 11. Milbank, J., (1997). The word made strange: theology. Language, Culture: Oxford: Blackwell, p227 12. Ruskin, J., (2005). Stones of Venice: Foundation part one. NY: Cosimo Inc, p60 13. Craig (2004), p332 op cit It is in the stones of Venice that he praised the Gothic work for what he calls unity, and portraying Morality, in advocating for a deeper interaction between art and morality.14 To Ruskin, “strong sense of education’s leading behavior and belief that is appropriate to citizens of a just society” is important elements in the society.15 His belief in instilling morality through education was passed through a group of Ruskin’s followers, who were in positions of responsibility and influence in the education sector. Ruskin believed in reaching students not only for their vocations and callings, but for “social conditions in which they are expected to have to work.”16 Ruskin in elaborating the significance of any architectural work in the Poetry of Architecture, he illustrates three windows. One window portrays a man of intellect, one a man of feeling, and the other a man of imagination.17 The architectural Villa as Ruskin presents has in addition to present a sense of national character. In this, Ruskin explains how architectural work has to have a purpose in having a stereotype to present nationality, and having the other three attributes that portray creativity, unity of form among other identities. In advocating Victorian materialism, Ruskin refers to Pearson, Bodley or Scott, which he defines to have mountain qualities such as density and angularity, and including the mountainous nature in their substance.18 In the Stones of Venice, Ruskin demonstrates that increasing technical performance is in engraving is not only tiresome and laborious to the consumer to perceive it, is too laborious for the engraver of the worker who transferred the engraving to wood.19 14. Hobson, J.A., (1898). John Ruskin social reformer. London: Dana Estes & Company, p44 15. OGorman, F., (2003). “Ruskin, Venice, and the Nature of Gothic," in Victorian Gothic, ed. Charlottesville: Univ. of Virginia Press, p44 16. Atwood (2006), p122 op cit 17. Ruskin (1903), p137 op cit 18. Kaufamn, N.E., (1987).Architectural representation in Victorian England .Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 46(1); pp30-38 19. Ruskin, J.,(1869). Modern Painters Volume 5. NY: Wiley & Sons, p96 This is a good representation of the balance between social and economical aspects, where Ruskin finds the work too much for the engraver.20Ruskin became a critic of the Gothic artistic work for involving too much complexity that event eh observer is at pains to observe. Ruskin influenced architectural work, by making attempts to move from the purely Victorian artistic work, blending it with other artistic designs including the gothic artistic work. Though Victorian architectural work was lovely and with unique taste, to Ruskin, the architectural work had major problems. The style was mutating with time, and if the remembrance of the original style was to be maintained, buildings had to be reserved in saving the Victorian architectural identity.21Ruskin had new common designs, but maintained some of the Victorian characteristics such as the tall pillars, and spacey rooms.22 The Crystal palace was the main building classified under Victorian architecture, before the art began to fade away.23 Though the Palace was Victorian, not all the details were Victorian, but the Palace used as status for influence had much of the traits borrowed from the Victorian artistic work.24 Ruskin’s influence was further boosted by the foundation of the Ruskin by two Americans in Oxford 1899, as an independence teaching class for the working class.25 It’s through this school that these ideas were spread throughout England concerning architectural work. 20. Siegel, J., (1999). Black arts, ruined cathedrals, and the grave in engraving: Ruskin and he fatal art excess. Victorian Literature and Culture, 27(2); 395-417 21. Brooks, C., & Saint, A., (1995). The Victorian Church: Architecture and society. Manchester: Manchester University Press, p174 22. Hershey, G.L.,(1972). High Victorian Gothic. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press,p155 23. Holzer, N., (2000). Personal Interview on Ruskin. Proquest., p71 24. Ferriday, P. ed, (1964). Victorian architecture. Philadelphia. PUP, p120 25. Hewison, R., (2007). John Ruskin. London. Oxford University Press, p112 Ruskin in his critic of Gothic art that had been embraced in Victoria explained concerning order, control and mechanical reproduction, the imperfection is more than the perfect; in his criticism of resisting centralization, order, and irregularity, as a means to achieve perfection.26 An art that wonders away from the regular instead of that which nears perfection is perfect.27 To Ruskin Perfection was a limiting fact, for it was an end point or a preconceived form. In his architectural ideas, Ruskin recognized the immense benefits of wandering through the “Aesthetic of generosity,” 28 which portrayed that human failure was called for or necessary. Imperfection animates life, as it is the essence of life for all to admit irregularities as they admit change.29 In this, Ruskin advocates for reading and criticizing a building closely, as they would critically examine a book, regarding their knowledge, and feelings; these are the single most powerful tools that encompasses perceptual operation.30 Comparing the Gothic and Victorian artistic work, Ruskin makes unusual theorization regarding the Gothic irregularities, and the Victorian serialization.31 The Victorian serialization according to Ruskin appeared antithetical to Gothic fiction, which was a regular form that corrects the irregularities found in the Gothic imperfections. Serialization in this aligns itself with the mechanical perfection and regularity.32 Considering these differences, and the perception by Ruskin, he integrated his experiences to model architectural work in Victoria. 26. Ruskin (1869), p120 op cit 27. Ibid, p121 28. O’Gorman (2003), p107 op cit 29. Alexandra K. W., (2003). In the Minds Eye: The Visual Impulse in Diderot, Baudelaire and Ruskin. Amsterdam: Rodopi, p220 30. Chavez., M. J., (1900). The Gothic Heart of Victorian Serial Fiction. Studies in English Literature, 1500 - 1900. Vol. 50( 4);  pg. 791 31. Massé, M.A., (1992). In the Name of Love: Women, Masochism, and the Gothic Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, p20 32. Beetham, M., (1990). “Theorizes the competing features of the periodical form as "open" and "closed" in "Towards a Theory of the Periodical as a Publishing Genre," in Investigating Victorian Journalism, ed. Laurel Brake, Aled Jones, and Lionel Madden . New York: St. Martins Press, p27 For example, Ruskin and his followers disliked modern materials such as iron, which can produce duplicate forms without the hand of an artist, moving towards utilitarianism.33 Ruskin even said he would have nothing to do with the Oxford Museum if glass was to be used, and an iron roof at the top of the museum. His contribution in the Crystal Palace architecture was recorded in the same criticism.34Ruskin in addition had the infinite variety of the material world expressed in specific plants, with Ruskin making his input regarding construction materials. Largely in the Victorian architecture, Ruskin insisted upon the value of abstract ideas from artists, using the human intellect for the purpose of fine arts, or upon knowledge and ideas expressed in pictures.35Ruskin’s much contributions were after publication of the Stone of Venice in 1849, and had much influence on the development of the Deane and Woodward’s architectural works, which were critical in the construction o the Oxford Museum, and after winning the Museum’s competition in December 1854, as well as in the constriction of the Museum building at Trinity College Dublin.36 Most distinct aspects in his architectural work in Victoria were his advocacy to relate architecture and landscape. For example, Ruskin was fascinated by landscape watercolors of the landscapes, and the buildings that he thought were endangered, in the undisturbed countryside of England. He was especially thrilled by the work of Greensway, concerning his childhood, which he remembered, and recalled clearly in a remote countryside.37 33. Yanni Carla. 2005. Nature’s museums Victorian science and the architecture of display .NY: Princeton Architectural Press, p84 34. Oxford Museum Delegates,(1856). vol, UM/M 1 April 24 1856 Vol. 114 Oxford University Press. 35. Bradley, L.J., (1984). John Ruskin the critical heritage. London: Routledge, p333 36. O’Dwyer F., (1997). The architecture of Deane and Woodward. Cork: Cork university Press, pxxix 37. Wilcox, S., (1992). Victorian landscape watercolors. NY: Yale center for British Art, p39. Ruskin was to transfer this relation between architecture and nature to typical buildings in Victoria, by advocating for stereotyping of these buildings according to nationality, personality, landscape among other elements. These characteristics are based on his argument regarding cloud flocks in the modern painter.38 Ruskin critic was mainly based on the need to have meaning, purpose and identity in architecture. For example, he considered the uniformity in Gothic style as imperfection, and suggested that perfection would be to design that which deviates from the regular, to portray a sense of life and creativity. Ruskin suggested architectural work that rhymes with the environment and surroundings, nationality, personality among other things, in promoting a stereotypic mode of architecture, which offers both aesthetic and identity. For Ruskin, that which had no human input was not acceptable as it denied the integration of social and economic forces; though too complex shapes such as engraved shapes proved to be laborious to the observer and the artist. It’s these ideas that Ruskin was able to influence in architectural works such as in the Palace, and the Oxford Museum among others. The foundation of a Ruskin’s college in Oxford served to spread his ideals, and this influenced architectural work in Victoria. Therefore, Ruskin had great influence in Victorian architecture that had embraced Gothic styles in churches and other buildings. 38. Ruskin (1869), 117 op cit Read More