Does Brunelleschi's Santo Spirito (see attachment) have a Post-Modern aesthetic? Why?
Submitted by GFS on Tue, 2007-04-17 21:21
Yes
21% (4 votes)
No
53% (10 votes)
Maybe
11% (2 votes)
I have no idea
16% (3 votes)
Total votes: 19
Post-Modern??
Brunelleschi may have designed a building that has some similarities to post-modernism, however, he was not consciously trying to respond to a modernist ideal. The building does have a bland façade. However, this could be attributed to many different things, whether they are lack of funds, or an interest to respect a nearby building that demanded a more prominent position in the neighborhood’s hierarchy, or, as is the case in this situation, a design may have not been finished. Either way Brunelleschi was not responding to a previous style.
This does not, however, answer the question at hand, does the building share an aesthetic. I do believe that to some there may be some similarities, but these similarities are few and insignificant. The design of the facade draws upon very traditional proportions and elements of architecture. For example the cornice heights, and proportion of the windows and doors are all traditional.
As a side note the wooden crucifix carved by Michelangelo which hangs in Santa Spirito is much more post-modernist than the facade. With its enlarged head, and diminishing proportions from the hands to the feet are, first uncharacteristic to Michelangelo’s works in marble, and resembles the post-modern ideal of using traditional techniques with simple twists to create double coding it the art work.
How I back up my YES vote:
Here it is:
I posted this poll not as a blank question, but to try to figure out how Brunelleschi and Post-Modernist architects arrived at (what I see as) a seemingly similar result. Maybe the result isn't so similar, which is why it's a poll. If they ARE found to be similar in spirit, do the seemingly diverse design approaches of the different architects (Rennaissance and PoMo) across millennia make any difference if the result is similar? Do differing methodolgies substantiate inherently different styles? This is my personal substantiation, which I've posted to the TradArch list:
Post Modern Intent
I have voted "No" because this work isn't the result of post-modern intentions. There is no deliberate attempt to subvert or parody convention in the manner of Venturi. Also, unlike most similar post-modern facades, it would be possible to add pilasters and detailed scrolls and enhance the aesthetic rather than destroying it.
I feel the spirit of post-modernism can be more observed in the next generation of renaissance architects, the mannerists. Guilio Romano's Palazzo del Te, for example, deliberately subverts the Classical language.
Intent and Mannerism
Does intent really count? To the non-architects, it's really about how it looks, I think. Non-architects generally don't have the faintest concern for why architects do what they do. It's hard enough to get people used to just noticing buildings.
Regarding Mannerism- it might be anti-classical in theory, but ultimately Mannerist buildings are undoubtedly included in the genre of Classicism.
Think of Philip Johnson's AT&T building in New York- it could have easily been adorned with pilasters and other ornamentation, especially at the lower levels. There are other examples, too, so I'm not entirely sure how additive possibilities substantiate a criterion. It's not quite a rule, in other words; more like a coincidence?
Aesthetics
If you define sharing an aesthetic as "looking similar" then Santo Spirito does look similar to some post-modern. I think intent is important though and leads to subtle differences in the final building. I would imagine Brunelleschi would have welcomed the opportunity to add more detail to his facade - I think Philip Johnson would see his buildings as complete in themselves. Postmodern architects often create deliberately difficult relationships of elements that would make full Classical expression very difficult - true Classicists try to keep things harmonious.
Some of the architects you have mentioned, Leon Krier for instance, might be better described as Classicists than Post-Modernists. It depends if you see post-modernism as a style or an intellectual movement.