daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 23rd, 2011, 02:38 AM   #1
Wilmot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

'fake' Greek architecture in America

Hi, I'm currently looking for ancient Greek style buildings in America that go against the actual ancient Greek orders. Anything is appreciated.
Wilmot no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 23rd, 2011, 03:13 AM   #2
URBANITY REPORTS
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: マイアミ
Posts: 700
Likes (Received): 276

DC?
URBANITY REPORTS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 04:33 AM   #3
TugaMtl
Registered User
 
TugaMtl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,679
Likes (Received): 18

When you think about most Greek revival architecture of today go against the style of ancient Greece since they are not painted.
TugaMtl no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 05:20 AM   #4
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,623
Likes (Received): 10781

Toronto
Old Toronto Post Office / Old Bank of Canada, built in 1853


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nto_Street.JPG
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 05:37 AM   #5
Wilmot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

Thanks for the contribution, would you say this breaks 'Ionic' order by lack of moldings under what seems to be a double stacked frieze?
Wilmot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 05:47 AM   #6
TheCanadianEuro
Registered User
 
TheCanadianEuro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London/Toronto
Posts: 434
Likes (Received): 2

Welcome to the forum, Wilmot! Now to google double stacked frieze haha.
TheCanadianEuro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 06:02 AM   #7
Wilmot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCanadianEuro View Post
Welcome to the forum, Wilmot! Now to google double stacked frieze haha.
Why thanks. According to what I've been studying, that bank building breaks a certain classical era of architectural order (exactly what I've been looking for.)

[IMG]http://t1.************/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmfNhRcIY67SkxRHI02ueVXw-9xk93c_HBcSOUwbF1k_0w9Uhc&t=1[/IMG]
Wilmot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 07:49 AM   #8
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,957
Likes (Received): 12186

Excellent example, isaidso. One of the best in Toronto. Greek Revival was never fully intended to be an exact copy of the original Greek structures. Like the Romans, they took "inspiration" from the Greek styles (ie swiped which ever they wanted to use ), without being an exact copy. This is what most "Revival" styles were about...they rather lazily stole concepts and use styles haphazardly. The Victorians were very fond of reviving older styles, and hence we had Tudor Revival, Gothic Revival, Italian Renaissance Revival, Romanesque Revival, etc..
In the 1850's in Toronto, dabbling with bits and pieces of "Greek Revival" elements was much in vogue, and we can see subtle influences of it in this 1858 Georgian style townhouse (the only one left of a row). If you look carefully there is a white Greek frieze running across the top.



In the last half of the 19th century, Greek influence could be seen on most banking buildings in Canada and the USA, especially the grand Head Office branches. There are hundreds of not thousands of examples of that all over the continent. Here is the old Bank of Commerce in Winnipeg (I'm sorry these two are old file pics I have and I don't know who took them. I lost my own photos in a computer crash last year):





a bank in Toronto:



some buildings in Old Montreal:

Bank of Montreal Head Office branch (architects Architects: McKim, Mead and White)






So, as you can see, "Greek" style elements were used with varying degrees of authenticity. The height or proportions of the columns were often wrong, and on occasion they would even mix up a column order, but putting fluting on a Doric column, or using Corinthian capitals on a chunky thick Ionic or Doric column shape with no fluting, or other such confusion. Here is another bank from Winnipeg with confused columns, designed by one of the leading architects in New York at the time, McKim, Mead and White (who also did the older and more luxurious national Head Office Bank of Montreal above).


http://archiseek.com/2010/1913-bank-...ipeg-manitoba/


The Greeks were EXTREMELY careful and VERY precise about fixed proportions of buildings, and followed their rules religiously. Victorian builders were a bit more wild and carefree about proportions, which resulted in a broad variation of faux Greek-style banking temples, with wildly varying degrees of authenticity to the original styles.

Here is a closeup photo I took of the confused column order of that bank, back around 1983:



this was a much better interpretation of a Corinthian column, on an old Bank of Toronto building in Winnipeg, that I also took back in 1983:



some ruins of an old Bank building in Toronto (I believe the Bank of Toronto):



and a pair of squat, badly proportioned pair of Corinthian columns that appear downright stumpy:

__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 03:31 PM   #9
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Just to quibble a bit, but the "rules" that supposed govern the "actual ancient Greek orders" were codified by the Romans, and not the Greeks. No actual ancient Greek treatise on architecture survives, and the "orders" that we recognize today as Greek are Vitruvian attempts at rationalization and ordering. The orders themselves are Greek in origination, but the rules were probably much more fluid than what Vitruvius and the 16th century theorists may have wanted to admit. A careful reading of Pausanias would bear this out, especially in the descriptions of many of the vanished Greek monuments and buildings.

By way of a simple example: the golden ratio is not as prevalent in ancient Greek architecture as the later theorists have claimed. It is one of the many myths that haunt our notions of classical Greek architecture to this day.

Last edited by tpe; March 23rd, 2011 at 03:36 PM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 05:52 PM   #10
skymantle
Registered User
 
skymantle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,795
Likes (Received): 3113

Treatise may not remain, but many of the buildings through archaeology do remain, as well as descriptions, such as those from Pausanias. The orders are universally recognized as Greek, that's indisputable.

It is true that in the Hellenistic Age there were deviations and more, lets say 'liberty' from the tenets of classical architecture, so much so that the style took on a very elaborate form in many cases, even referred by some today as Hellenistic Baroque. However, classical Greek architecture was much more adherent and strict to its tenets of proportion and the balance and form that came with that. Remember, Pausanias was writing during Roman Greece times in the 2nd century AD, which was after the Helelnistic Age and well after the claasical era.

Today, we have influences from Greek architecture that can be described as 'academic classical' or 'free classical. The former being more adherent to Greek tenets of architecture, while the later simply takes motifs, decorative elements, usually displayed on the facades and therefore could probably be called more fake than academic classical which looks at the whole composition of the building and its classical design.
skymantle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 08:19 PM   #11
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,957
Likes (Received): 12186

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
No actual ancient Greek treatise on architecture survives, .
Because none has survived to this date you feel it did not exist? As has been pointed out, some of the actual bones of their structures still exist. This is how we know their theories of proportion. As Shakespeare would have said: "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting". The Romans went on to give us amazing developments in architecture, city planning and infrastructure, as well as Art, but owed a great deal more to the Greeks than many people are now willing to admit. I daily walk past Victorian and Edwardian apartment blocks that are incredibly similar to original Roman designs (with interior light wells, clerestory lighting, central staircase, running water, sewage disposal, etc...). The list of Roman achievements is long..... but there is no denying that they started by copying Greek Art and Architecture, then took that knowledge and moved forward. They often copied Greek statues identically, then claimed it as their own art. Later, though, they came up with innovations of their own in art, like atmospheric perspective.
Without both the Greeks and the Romans, our cities would look ENTIRELY different today, and likely would be aesthetically impoverished to boot; not to mention have inferior infrastructure.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 10:22 PM   #12
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

What I said is that we should be careful of attributing many classical rules to the ancient Greeks. The Romans made many many innovations -- first and foremost in Greek architecture. So we must be careful not to attribute Roman refinements and innovations in Greek architecture to the ancient Greeks themselves. The Vitruvian rules do not necessarily reflect overall Greek practice and aesthetics during the classic period. They are closer with the Hellenistic aesthetic than they are to classical Greek.

Moreover, many of what we now think of as "classical Greek" actually originated with the late Roman and 16th century European theorists and beyond.

I gave the example of the Golden Ratio. Many have noted that this proportion can be found in the Parthenon in Athens, but recent studies stemming from the restoration of the Parthenon have shown that this is not so in many instances. This is an example where we might ascribe something as "classical" but may not be a prevailing practice in antiquity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taller, Better View Post
Because none has survived to this date you feel it did not exist? As has been pointed out, some of the actual bones of their structures still exist. This is how we know their theories of proportion. As Shakespeare would have said: "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting". The Romans went on to give us amazing developments in architecture, city planning and infrastructure, as well as Art, but owed a great deal more to the Greeks than many people are now willing to admit. I daily walk past Victorian and Edwardian apartment blocks that are incredibly similar to original Roman designs (with interior light wells, clerestory lighting, central staircase, running water, sewage disposal, etc...). The list of Roman achievements is long..... but there is no denying that they started by copying Greek Art and Architecture, then took that knowledge and moved forward. They often copied Greek statues identically, then claimed it as their own art. Later, though, they came up with innovations of their own in art, like atmospheric perspective.
Without both the Greeks and the Romans, our cities would look ENTIRELY different today, and likely would be aesthetically impoverished to boot; not to mention have inferior infrastructure.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2011, 11:27 PM   #13
Huti
bitte spiel mir etwas
 
Huti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,639
Likes (Received): 19976

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon_%28Nashville%29





Huti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2011, 02:19 AM   #14
skymantle
Registered User
 
skymantle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,795
Likes (Received): 3113

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
What I said is that we should be careful of attributing many classical rules to the ancient Greeks. The Romans made many many innovations -- first and foremost in Greek architecture. So we must be careful not to attribute Roman refinements and innovations in Greek architecture to the ancient Greeks themselves. The Vitruvian rules do not necessarily reflect overall Greek practice and aesthetics during the classic period. They are closer with the Hellenistic aesthetic than they are to classical Greek.
Naturally the Romans adopted Greek architecture and added their own innovations, the arch for one. They were of course influenced by others as well such as the Etruscans. But you contradict yourself, perhaps without realizing it by stating the Romans were closer to the Hellenistic aesthetic than the classical one. The Hellenistic, as the word suggests was a later Greek period also, so yes Greek influences on them were indeed profound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Moreover, many of what we now think of as "classical Greek" actually originated with the late Roman and 16th century European theorists and beyond.
People such as Palladio, who incidentally takes his name from the Greek Pallas Athena, because at the time he was so profoundly said to be influenced by Graeco-Roman culture, of course came up with their own innovations. However the 'roots' of his designs are tied up in Greek architecture. There's no doubt about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
I gave the example of the Golden Ratio. Many have noted that this proportion can be found in the Parthenon in Athens, but recent studies stemming from the restoration of the Parthenon have shown that this is not so in many instances. This is an example where we might ascribe something as "classical" but may not be a prevailing practice in antiquity.
The Parthenon is something exceptional by all acoounts. The 'play on the eyes' so the columns looked straight from a distance etc, made for it to be very innovative, deviating from the golden rules of architecture. However this was the case also with other classical style buildings throughout history. Even Palladio who ascribed the importance of symmetry and proportion deviated from these rules if we look closer at his buildings. So, on the one hand he assigns certain strict rules, yet on the other he himself deviates from them. There is a great series, compared by Kevin McCloud from England who travels through Europe and explains the great influences of classical-style architecture in the West today, and he points out what I have written, including Palladio's 'unorthodox' practices and the debt we have to Greek architecture, with Greek clearly described as the source and origin of it all. Kevin McCloud Grand Tour of Europe DVD, highly recommended for all lovers of architecture.
http://www.************/tv/kevin_mccl...grand_tour.htm

Quote:
Roman Architecture: Greeks

Roman architecture represents a fusion of traditional Greek and Etruscan elements, notably the trabeated orders, with new structural principles based on the development of the arch and of a new building material, concrete. The Romans achieved originality in building very late in their existence; for the whole of the republican period, Roman architecture was a nearly exact copy of that of Greece, aside from the Etruscan contribution of the arch, and its later three-dimensional counterpart, the dome. The only two developments of any significance were the Tuscan and Composite orders; the first being a shortened, simplified variant on the Doric order and the Composite being a tall order with the floral decoration of the Corinthian and the scrolls of the Ionic....
http://www.lycos.com/info/roman-arch...e--greeks.html
skymantle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2011, 02:37 AM   #15
skymantle
Registered User
 
skymantle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,795
Likes (Received): 3113

Here's another interesting article.

Quote:
Roman art and architecture: origins and influences

by Lorena Shannon

The cities of the ancient Roman Empire were grand in scale and elegantly simple in design, maintaining an aesthetically pleasing ambiance that the citizens, at least the upper classes, had to have enjoyed. Scholars have debated for years as to the origins of the Roman forms of architecture and sculpture, pinpointing such cultures as the Greeks and Etruscans. Some think one or the other is the main or only influence whilst others believe that it could very well be both. Depending on where one is in the Roman Empire (Italy in particular), it is obvious that both cultures did, indeed, inspire the Romans toward one end or another. However, Greece seems to have played the larger role in the scheme of things, especially once it and the provinces of the east were assimilated.

During the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E the Greeks had spread beyond their earlier bounds of Crete, the Greek mainland, and modern-day Turkey and settled all along the Aegean coastline, building colonies in several places including Italy and Sicily. They had already established a name for themselves throughout the Mediterranean, and by the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E, they had achieved a cultural high point. The Persian Wars had been won, and Athens in particular, home of the Acropolis and Agora, was held by many outsiders and insiders alike in high regard.

It was around this period when Rome had begun to shake off Etruscan rule, developing the Republic and power all her own. The houses and temples were constructed the Etruscan way, which is what sparks part of the debate mentioned earlier, but it would not be long before the Romans came in better contact with their Greek neighbors to the south and east. After the Second Punic War which ended in 202 B.C.E, Rome became increasingly involved with Greece and the Middle East, importing art, marble and other luxuries in droves. Etruscan styles were traded for the Hellenistic, and buildings such as the Temple of Portunus began to appear, mimicking temples in Greece. The styles were still mingled, the Romans never truly and completely letting go of what the Etruscans had left them with. The Temple of Hercules at Cori is an example of this phenomenon, being built upon a podium with a broad roof (both Etruscan attributes) with Doric (Greek) columns.

Contact with the Hellenistic world inspired other things amongst the Romans than simply the style of architecture. The Greeks had been amongst the first civilizations to develop a layout for urbanization, creating particular street plans for more densely populated areas that are usually grid-like in design. Although some Etruscan towns also show this particular quality to them, Cosa and Marzabotto for instance, it is more likely that they are this way due to a military function rather than actual planning. Straight streets are more easily maneuvered than winding ones, and other towns built by the Etruscans have a more chaotic appearance to them. It is as if they were enlarged as the population grew, accommodating however necessary at the time of need, rather than being systematically planned out. Greek settlements are almost all constructed in rectangular blocks with straight streets. The problem encountered here, however, is that it is extremely hard to date exactly when the Greeks began to build their cities in such a way, so it is unknown which group the Romans originally took after.

The period of the rule of Augustus shows most vividly how Hellenistic styles integrated themselves into the Roman material culture. The discovery of marble in the north of Italy meant that the stone no longer had to be imported from Greece making it much less expensive. In consequence, Augustus practically rebuilt Rome, adding such buildings as his own Forum, the Ara Pacis, and numerous sculptures and statues like the Augustus Primaporta.

The Augustan Forum in particular simply radiates Greek influence. The colonnades along both sides of the structure are supported by Corinthian columns on the lower level and Caryatids along the upper level. The latter, a series of sculpted pillars carved to look just like young women, is modeled directly after the Erechthium at the Athenian Acropolis. One would think a Greek sculptor had fashioned them, as was common for much of the artwork done at the time, but one of the statues is signed, Caius Vibius Maximus, which is not a Greek name at all. This brings forth the possibility, as turns out to be the case, that Roman artists were being trained in the Greek methods and applying them.

Portraiture during the Augustan Period and even before is most assuredly influenced by the Hellenistic style. As a matter of fact, many busts were commissioned by Romans to be carved by Greek artists. Such a practice continued well into the Imperial age, spurred mainly by Augustus and the general tastes of the Romans. Even though several Roman artists tried their hands at the art, their works still displayed the unavoidable Greek characteristics of deeply furrowed brows and lined faces that perhaps tried to show the wisdom that comes with age. Augustus, however, never had himself carved as an older man but one perpetually in his twenties or thirties. This is atypical of the Greek style, but nevertheless it is shown through other means. The Augustus Primaporta, as an example, is positioned almost exactly like the Doryphorus from his stance to the bending of his knees and feet.

The emperor, Hadrian, was another to promote the Greek modes of art, but for him it all seems to be under different circumstances. While Augustus reigned, Greece was still prominent within the cultural scene, its sculpture and architecture exported all over the known world from the Middle East to what is now France and Spain and northern Africa. Hadrian, governing Rome over a century later, seemed to be trying to cling to the Hellenistic past with his commissions, such works as the Pantheon in Rome, the bust of Antinous, and the statue of Hermes that now stands in the Vatican.

In the early stages of Roman development, the Etruscans did, indeed, have quite an influence upon the styles of architecture as some scholars argue. Despite, as the city grew and expanded its borders into a massive empire, acquiring new knowledge of what lay in the world beyond, the Greeks played an even larger role in the culture of the Roman people by contributing an art form that would be used for centuries afterwards.

~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~

The following bibliography is divided into two parts: the first is the list of sources used within the main body of the essay; the second lists sources that may or may not have been consulted but are still useful for further reading or simply finding pictures of particular monuments pertinent to the subject matter. Everything is listed alphabetically.

Works Cited:

Brilliant, Richard. Commentaries on Roman Art: Selected Studies. London: Pindar Press, 1994.
~This collection of essays is useful for a great many topics in Classical history that deal with Roman art more or less specifically.

Grant, Michael. Art in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge, 1995
~Grant provides a brief yet useful overview of all the areas of Roman art from Imperial portraits to Christian architecture. Black and white photographs.

Sear, Frank. Roman Architecture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982.
~An excellent source for the subject matter that includes illustrations of monuments, floor plans, particular carved designs and city layouts. Contains a glossary.

Schoder, Raymond V. Masterpieces of Greek Art, 3rd ed. Chicago: Ares Publishers, Inc. 1975.
~The beginning of this book contains a brief but decent history of the Greek culture, though a bit out-dated. The remainder is a collection of full-color photo plates of both Greek and Roman art with short descriptions of the images on the facing page.

Ward-Perkins, J.B. Studies in Roman and Early Christian Architecture. London: Pindar Press, 1994.
~Like Sear's publication listed earlier, this book gives an excellent history of the Roman Empire from an architectural perspective with a number of black and white photographs and floor plans and city layouts.

~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~

For Further Information:

Cook, R.M. Greek Art: Its Development, Character and Influence. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1973.
~The entire book is an analytical view on the methods of the different forms of Greek art: pottery, painting, sculpture, metalworking, coinage and gems, architecture, and interior decoration. Cook provides several black and white photo plates for reference.

Fairbanks, Arthur. Greek Art: The Basis of Later European Art. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc. 1963
~Fairbanks presents a short but informative book on how the Greeks have managed to inspire art and sculpture both in Rome and more modern times. Black and white photo plates of several statues.

Ferris, I.M. Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2000.
~This book looks at the expansion of the Roman Empire and the Roman view of the barbarians with a particular focus upon how outsiders were portrayed in art/sculpture. Chapter One goes on at length about how both the Greeks and the Romans saw their neighbors, especially the Gauls. Good black and white photographs.

Hannestad, Niels. Roman Art and Imperial Policy. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988.
~ This is a good overview of the periods of Roman art from the Republic through the Dominate that focuses on several specific pieces (ex. Arringatore, Augustus Primaporta) complete with plenty of satisfactory black and white photographs.

Hellenism. 1911 Edition Encyclopedia. March 2004. http://14.1911encyclopedia.org /H/HE/HELLENISM.htm
~Despite the strange syntax errors, this is a very useful site that's full of information on Hellenism in general along with its role in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures.

Roman Architecture in the City of Rome. March 2004. http://harpy.uccs.edu/roman/ht ml/romarch.html
~This simple website is good for pictures of a few major monuments in the city of Rome.

Sparkes, Brian A. Greek Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
~This book focuses primarily on Greek sculpture and pottery in the sixth through fourth centuries B.C.E. Contains a few full-color plates and black and white photographs of various statues, monuments and ceramics.

Winn, Myrle. The Impact of Hellenism on Rome. March 2004. ~A well-researched article on how Hellenism spread throughout the Mediterranean, particularly into Rome.

http://www.helium.com/items/127846-r...and-influences
skymantle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2011, 03:53 AM   #16
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by skymantle View Post
But you contradict yourself, perhaps without realizing it by stating the Romans were closer to the Hellenistic aesthetic than the classical one. The Hellenistic, as the word suggests was a later Greek period also, so yes Greek influences on them were indeed profound.
There is no contradiction. Greek architecture of the CLASSIC period is VERY different from Greek architecture of the HELLENISTIC age.

The Hellenistic age is the period after the conquests of Alexander, when Greek architecture of the classic period was modified by new influences from the newly conquered Asiatic/Oriental (i.e., Persian/Babylonian,/Assyrian, etc.) cultures as well as the art and architecture of Egypt. To say that they are similar is equivalent to saying that not much differentiates neo-classicism from Baroque architecture.

Roman architecture is closer to Hellenistic architecture than it is to the Greek architecture of the classic period. One must distinguish between the two periods if one wishes to be taken seriously.

Last edited by tpe; March 24th, 2011 at 04:52 AM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2011, 04:55 AM   #17
skymantle
Registered User
 
skymantle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,795
Likes (Received): 3113

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
There is no contradiction. Greek architecture of the CLASSIC period is VERY different from Greek architecture of the HELLENISTIC age.
Of course it is. They're two different eras, but there was still a great influence from the classical period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
The Hellenistic age is the period after the conquests of Alexander, when Greek architecture of the classic period was modified by new influences from the newly conquered Asiatic (i.e., Persian/Babylonian,/Assyrian, etc.) cultures as well as the art and architecture of Egypt. To say that they are similar is equivalent to saying that not much differentiates neo-classicism from Baroque architecture.
They are similar, but of course different. That's not my point anyway. My point is that Hellenistic architecture IS also Greek architecture and hence its influence on Roman architecture. Like I said, the word Hellenistic says it all, which in fact means Greek. Greek = Hellene. We use the term Hellenistic to denote a later period in Greek history, including the style of architecture. Also, Hellenistic architecture is known for spreading Greek tenets of architecture on the conquered lands you mention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Roman architecture is closer to Hellenistic architecture than it is to the Greek architecture of the classic period. One must distinguish between the two periods if one wishes to be taken seriously.
Both classical era and Hellenistic era Greek architecture influenced the Romans as it's explained by the countless literature out there, including the links i've provided.

So remember, I was trying to say that you're contradicting yourself by saying that Roman architecture wasn't influenced by Greek architecture, even though you stated that it was influenced by Hellenistic architecture, which in fact is also considered Greek architecture.

How ever much you want to downplay the influence of Greek architecture and for that matter art, on Rome, you cannot deny the evidence that suggests otherwise. I suggest you come to terms with it.
skymantle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2011, 07:03 AM   #18
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by skymantle View Post
So remember, I was trying to say that you're contradicting yourself by saying that Roman architecture wasn't influenced by Greek architecture, even though you stated that it was influenced by Hellenistic architecture, which in fact is also considered Greek architecture.
??

It seems that you have trouble reading. I quote myself in full:

Quote:
What I said is that we should be careful of attributing many classical rules to the ancient Greeks. The Romans made many many innovations -- first and foremost in Greek architecture. So we must be careful not to attribute Roman refinements and innovations in Greek architecture to the ancient Greeks themselves. The Vitruvian rules do not necessarily reflect overall Greek practice and aesthetics during the classic period. They are closer with the Hellenistic aesthetic than they are to classical Greek.
Now, can you explain to us here in your own words how this passage implies "that Roman architecture wasn't influenced by Greek architecture"? I think the English is clear enough...

So please read carefully what I have written and do not obscure things by misrepresentations.

As for sources, forget all your secondary sources and go directly to the primary text. We may cite the rather fanciful explanation of the origins of Caryatids in architecture. The Roman clearly misunderstood Greek intentions on this subject. This is but one example when Vitruvius cannot be taken at face value.

Historias autem plures novisse oportet, quod multa ornamenta saepe in operibus architecti designant, de quibus argumentis rationem, cur fecerint, quaerentibus reddere debent. Quemadmodum si quis statuas marmoreas muliebres stolatas, quae cariatides dicuntur, pro columnis in opere statuerit et insuper mutulos et coronas conlocaverit, percontantibus ita reddet rationem Caria, civitas Peloponnensis, cum Persis hostibus contra Graeciam consensit. Postea Graeci per victoriam gloriose bello liberati communi consilio Cariatibus bellum indixerunt. ltaque oppido capto, viris interfectis, civitate declarata matronas eorum in servitutem abduxerunt, nec sunt passi stolas neque ornatus matronales deponere, uti non una triumpho ducerentur, sed aeterno, servitutis exemplo gravi contumelia pressae poenas pendere viderentur pro civitate. Ideo qui tunc architecti fuerunt aedificiis publicis designaverunt earum imagines oneri ferundo conlocatas, ut etiam posteris nota poena peccati Cariatium memoriae traderetur.

Marble architraves, indeed! Without question a Hellenistic gloss on the true origins of Caryatids in Greek architecture of the classic period.

So do you dare contradict this?

Last edited by tpe; March 24th, 2011 at 07:26 AM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2011, 01:36 AM   #19
abraham
100% argento
 
abraham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: República de la Sexta
Posts: 10,969
Likes (Received): 7681

Philadelphia's Ritz-Carlton springs to mind.
__________________
La lepra no es una enfermedad, es una RELIGIÓN.
abraham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2011, 11:53 PM   #20
ngfede
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 107
Likes (Received): 2

Greek theatre
Cordoba city, Argentina


image hosted on flickr

source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10905/3099529620/


source: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o...l/12387512.jpg
ngfede no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu