formal architectural analysis

 Close Reading and Formal Analysis - Professors Peter Eisenman and Anthony Gagliardi - Yale School of Architecture

critical differences between Nolli’s Map of Rome and Piranesi’s Campo Marzio

As men of the mid-18th century enlightenment era, both Nolli and Piranesi examine the spatial relationships within the context of the entire urban plan of Rome. The collective city was looked at by Nolli and Piranesi through entirely distinct perspectives and each map illustrates this. Nolli’s urban map explores the literal reality of the building relationships by depicting mass, void, streets, and pathways to scale. Nolli also accurately depicts the urban sprawl of Rome where buildings originally initiated in the center and as time went on the city dispersed to the outer edges. Piranesi had a more fantastical view of looking at the city of Rome. Unlike Nolli, Piranesi did not depict buildings to scale and did not include every building and void, rather he chose which buildings and spaces to incorporate in his map. Perhaps Piranesi only included buildings and spaces that he thought truly reflected Rome or the original architect’s intention for the space. Piranesi highlights the river Tiber’s central role that threads each detailed monument together. Each monument’s thesis and distinct features are included to create a map of buildings which characterize the culture of the people who live in Rome. Though not scientifically accurate like Nolli’s interpretation Piranesi depicts the imaginative architect’s fantasy which rejects the boundaries of architecture and reality, and celebrates the uniqueness and diverse designs of its community.

Critical Analysis of one of Serlio’s palazzo inventions

Sebastiano Serlio was a major force in introducing mannerist architecture to France and to the architectural field. He originally translated the design language of roman principles in architecture through his series Seven Books of Architecture. Mannerism surpassed the notions of classical architecture by denying a natural formal order and acknowledging that architectural spaces can function successfully independently. Moving from a point of architecture where the traditional ideas of structure were being set up for void to form, mannerism further developed this idea of separate relationships within architecture by using architectural elements to rethink the value of harmony and the relationships between systems. A new found form of expression and critique of classic architecture is found in mannerism.

critical Analysis of vignola’s Villa Giulia in Rome

Within Vignola’s Villa Giulia is a series of proportional circular and arched features that gradually funnel down to a central point on the back wall of the garden. These circular features as they move from the entrance of the building to the garden hold within the proportion created the tripartite entrances for each of building section. The Villa Giulia can not be discussed without recognizing Julius III, who was primarily responsible for giving the many architects of post classic architecture the building project to work on. The Vila Giulia is unlike any other building and epitomizes this time period yet it is often overlooked because of the complex relationships and geometries found in the building. Because the building was designed by several architects during various time periods it is difficult to distinguish which portions of the building were designed to be cohesive and which portions are in a state of disjuncture because of the circumstances. Even the four main portions of the building are often difficult to decipher which include the casino, the walls of the main courtyard and loggia, the two upper floors of the small courtyard and the lowest floor of the small courtyard. The shift from two axes to one axes changed the movement towards the center, a centripetal character used in the high renaissance to movement away from the center, a centrifugal character, in the Villa Giulia. The importance of the Villa Giulia rests in the completeness of the whole and in the entity in which each architect was invested in.