Fotografisk studie af stofligheden i lys/Photographic Study of Light as Material

 

 

 

 

Tale of the double circle motif detail at Brion Cemetery by Carlo Scarpa

T. M. Brandstrup Stud.polyt. 1.semester MSc. Architecture & Design, Aalborg University, DK

ABSTRACT: this paper discusses the term “tectonic” in relation to details through an analysis of the double circle motif by Carlo Scarpa at his design for the Brion Tomb. As a systematic layout for the analysis the method “Analysing through scale” is used, as developed by Marie Hvejsel Frier. During this analysis will develop a discussion on form versus formation in tectonics, as it is my hypothesis that the chosen detail is an implemented form as opposed to a tectonic formation. As an introduction to the paper will be a discussion of the term “tectonic” based on theories by Kenneth Frampton, Karl Bötticher and Marco Frascari.

 

1 INTRODUCTION

 

When introduced to this assignment, I immediately knew that I wanted to work with a detail by Carlo Scarpa, often referred to as “the master of details” – especially tectonic details. The choice of the double circle motif detail at the entrance wall of the Brion Tomb is though a paradox of my admiration of the architect. As Carlo Scarpa seems to have a talent of molding details which seems to be created by the spaces or elements they inhabit, the double circle motif on the contrary appears implemented into the wall.

This reveals a dichotomy between form and formation, as an analogy to the construction/construing dichotomy stated by Frascari, which I propose is connected to the dichotomy of tectonic/atectonic.

The form/formation dichotomy is expressed very deliberately  in this quote by the German art-theorist Paul Klee“…form may never be regarded as solution, result, end, but should be regarded as genesis, growth, essence. Form as phenomenon is a dangerous chimera. Form as movement, as action, is a good thing, active form is good. Form as rest, as end, is bad. Passive, finished form is bad. Formation is good. Form is bad; form is the end, death. Formation is movement, act. Formation is life.” (Klee in Guidi 2011:28)

 

The double circle motif is a “finished” form, a completed form, and therefore almost impossible to mold, unless by scaling or decoration, exactly as Scarpa has done it in this case. It is a symbolic form, and it’s symbolism and unability to be molded states the fact that the form is not an aesthetic solution to a constructional problem. Rather it is an aesthetic and symbolic solution to a phenomenological problem, which is solved constructively. This reveals the fact that the detail is not tectonic – but it does not prevent it from containing tectonic in its structural solution.

The chronological development of the term tectonic emphasizes this proposition. As pointed out by Frampton in his “Studies in Tectonic Culture” (Frampton 1995), the term tectonic “…eventually aspire to an aesthetic rather than a technological category” (Frampton 1995:4) – thus it originated primarily from a technological category. Furthermore, Marco Frascari states that “any architectural element defined as a detail is always a joint” (Frascari 1984:2), and Adolf Heinrich Borbein links both the aesthetics, joint and tectonic in his quote ““Tectonic becomes the art of joinings. […] as soon as an aesthetic perspective […] is defined that specifies the work and production of the tekton, then the analysis consigns the term “tectonic” to an aesthetic judgment”. (Frampton 1995: 4)

Frascari classifies joints in two groups: material joints and formal joints. The formal joint is a metaphysical joint, for example a spatial joint between interior and exterior.

This distinction leads us to the actual analysis of the detail.

 

It is not my intention to enroll a deeper analysis of the many layers of symbolism related to the Vesica Piscis, as this motif is also known as. My focus of this paper is a tectonic analysis of the motif as it is used in this particular case, its gesture and its principle.

 

2 METHODOLOGY

 

As this paper will argument that the chosen detail is a scaled detail more than a molded detail, the analysis method as developed by Marie Frier Hvejsel “Analyzing through scale” is used. This analysis discusses the gesture of the detail through the five points: Function, Emotion, Construct, Realm and Principle.

As tools for executing this analysis are used phenomenology, semiotics, rationalism, induction as well as deduction together with empirical knowledge.

As I have not experienced the detail physically, the analysis is based on literary, filmic and photographic studies as well as sketching the detail continuously.

 

3 ANALYSING THROUGH SCALE

 

3.1 Function

 

The function of the double circle motif at the entrance of the Brion Tomb has to be comprehended on two levels. Most physically it is a window emitting light into the entrance corridor and exchanging views between this and the garden. This implies a gesture of revelation as proposed by Hvejsel (Hvejsel 2011:72). But because of its scale, it phenomenologically also presents itself as passageway, a door, with the gesture of guidance (Hvejsel 2011:72) until you come close enough to realize that it is uplifted from the ground as a threshold, and further discover a small stream running on the outside. These two small obstacles make the wall opening impenetrable.

On both levels the wall opening functions as a spatially joint (a formal joint in relation to Frascari, Frascari 1984:1). It is a spatial joint between interior and exterior, and between the two surfaces of the wall which it inhabits.

As functioning as both a window and a door, or maybe neither, its gesture of enlightenment can perceivably imply both guidance and revelation.

 

3.2 Emotion

 

When walking from the cemetery entrance towards the Brion Tomb entrance, you walk directly towards the double circle motif situated at the transverse wall. But from this distance the scale of the motif is too large in relation to the narrow view that the corridor allows, so all you see is a sort of “light at the end of the tunnel” which guides you towards it.

The detail is thus situated at the most dramatic spot in the whole complex of the cemetery; at the intersection between the old and the new part of the cemetery, but also at the exact spot where the visitor has to make a decision as to which path he or she chooses, and thus needs enlightenment.

 

There is an extensive level of symbolical value to its form. The function of the symbols all together is to evoke a certain self-awareness relating to the implied themes; life/death, physical/metaphysical, male/female etc. The themes are dualities and in a yin yang-character, because of the motif; its form is formed from two interlocking circles, which in an act of symbiosis form a second form, an almond-shaped form at the symmetrical axis of the motif.

Two identical static forms create a new, dynamic form. The process of ‘formation’ is thus incorporated into the static form of the motif.

 

The gesture of enlightenment indulges feeling consent to participate in the process of formation into a ‘complete human form’ in symbiosis between life and death. But the gesture also develops together with the changing roles it plays phenomenologically; at first it guides you towards it, then it reveals a view into a garden behind it,  frames the view and as a climax it enlightens you with formation of symbiosis.

 

 

3.3 Realm

 

When entering the Brion Cemetery you walk along a straight path on line of the grid of the old part of the cemetery. At the end of this path begins Carlo Scarpas part of the cemetery – the Brion Tomb. A short and narrow corridor leads via either three or five steps towards a transverse wall which forces you to choose to turn left or right. Left leads you out of the corridor towards the Brion Tomb, moving parallel to the small stream that prevents you from walking on the other side of it. Right leads you via a longer corridor out on a path surfacing the meditation pool with a small pavilion at the end of it.

At the spot where you need to make this choice, you meet the double circle motif at the transverse wall.

The placement of the detail is between interior and exterior, and also between life; the meditation pool, and death; the Brion Tomb.

 

In a timely context, this part of the cemetery is finished in 1978 – the same year as the death of Carlo Scarpa – during an age where civilization became more “atheistic” (Noever 1989:36), and this made it actually possible for such a radical design of a tomb and cemetery.

In an architectural historical context, the double circle motif is also a product of the post-modern semiotic experimentation (Fazio, Moffett, Wodehouse 2008:519).

 

 

3.4 Construct

 

The construction of the detail is solved with a steel frame, formed in its completeness in advance to be inserted into the wall opening of the concrete wall. The concrete wall is cast in situ and the pattern of the wooden scaffolding is printed into the surface of the wall – this a tectonic detail, as the constructive solution of the casting contributes with an aesthetic detailing of the surface. But inserting the steel frame is not a tectonic exploitation of the properties of the concrete. The concrete has a plastic consistency, which makes it easy moldable, and furthermore has good cohesion (Deplazes 2010:60). These properties make the concrete ideal for the formation of the double circle motif.

 

3.5 Principle

 

The use of the steel frame somewhat enhances the framing of the view through the double circle motif, as the motif is not molded by the concrete but rather enclosed by a unified, structurally reinforcing frame. The application of the porcelain tiles on the frame further increase a focus on the form and the symbolism, thus also the gesture, but simultaneously decreases the tectonic of the detail, and thus the gesture should have been revealed using other means and a stronger principle.

 

4 CONCLUSIONS

 

Carlo Scarpa is the personification of working right on the verge of tectonic detailing. As a product of his time, as a post-modernist, he attempts to implement new poetry into architecture through detailing, but without ornamenting. Analogous to Semper’s and Bötticher’s search for a synthesis between the Gothic and Greek attention to detailing and construction (Hvejsel 2011:126). This is expressed in his own words upon the project: “I have tried to put some poetic imagination into it, though not in order to create poetic architecture but to make a certain kind of architecture that could emanate a sense of formal poetry. I mean an expressed form that can become poetry, though (…) you cannot intentionally make poetry.” (Carlo Scarpa in Noever 1989:17).

 

As much as the detail analyzed here is very poetic and has a clear gesture of enlightenment which enhances the phenomenologic experience of the cemetery, it remains short of a clear tectonic principle.

This analysis of the double circle motif thus leads to my personal conclusion that Carlo Scarpa did not manage to remain within the tectonic verge of detailing. But through analysis of his work has been revealed a new approach towards defining tectonic architecture which involves the process; the importance of formation of detailing as opposed to detailing with forms.

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Deplazes, A. 2010 Constructing Architecture – materials processes structures – a handbook, Birkäuser, Basel

 

Fazio, M., Moffett, M., Wodehouse, L. 2008 A World History of Architecture, Laurence King Publishing, London

 

Frampton, K., 1995, Studie in Tectonic Culture: The poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, The MIT Press, Cambridge

 

Frascari, M., 1984 The tell-the-tail detail, Via no.7,

 

Guidi, G. 2011 Carlo Scarpa’s Tomba Brion Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern

 

Hvejsel M.F. 2011,  INTERIORITY – a critical theory of domestic architecture, AD:MT, ISSN 1603-6204, Skriftserie 44

 

Noever, P. 1989 The other city – Carlo Scarpa, Wilhelm Ernst & Son, Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften, Berlin

 

 

 

 

 

 

3rd Day on Can Lis

Experiments on Aquarel

Can Lis in her morning glory

First Day at Can Lis

Photos

Drawings

Paul Klee on form

In relation to my last post, I found this quote by the artist Paul Klee, which describes the dichotomy between form and formation very accurately:

"...form may never be regarded as solution, result, end, but should be regarded as genesis, growth, essence. Form as phenomenon is a dangerous chimera. Form as movement, as action, is a good thing, active form is good. Form as rest, as end, is bad. Passive, finished form is bad. Formation is good. Form is bad; form is the end, death. Formation is movement, act. Formation is life."

- from the book "Carlo Scarpa's Tomba Brion by Guido Guidi, p.28.
(http://www.amazon.it/Guido-Guidi-Carlo-Scarpa-Scarpas/dp/3775726241)

Modulær additiv arkitkektur/Modular additive architecture

What is the most important part of architecture? Is it form?

Throghout the history of architecture there has always been an obsession with form. But this obsession has always confused me; WHO did ever prove that a beautiful form to the eye also creates eminent spaces for the body??
Almost every realised, architectural project today  has a conceptual form, an intuitive form, maybe even a beautiful and playful form - but does the form contain beautiful spaces? - inhabitable spaces? - embodying spaces? - comfortable spaces?
What is a form but an empty shell?
How does a form communicate with the entire body?
Form is visual communication, only throught detailing and scaling can the form ever be architectural!

This is also my reason for having trouble with modular additive architecture - as for example the Espansiva Module by Jørn Utzon. The module develops as a form which is has to be easily additive, and the danger of this is that the final building often becomes a formstudy of how to add these module intuitively, functionally and formingly.
Only late in the process is the final building fittet into the given context.

But my proposition is that architecture is supposed to develop from and interrelation between the context, the function and - most importingly - the body of the user. There must be a way in which modular additive architecture can coexist with these terms, as I accept and believe that there is a need for the economically solution of the additive module, but I have not yet found it.

The most important part of architecture must be, and always will be, the body.