A comparison of Semper, Ruskin, and Viollett-Le-Duc

All three of these architects have contributed much to the development of the current age in modern architecture. Each of these men had a similar thirst for knowledge and furthering the advancement of architecture with each and every one of their contributions, yet all of them had their individual beliefs, influences, styles, and views on how architecture and design should be implemented, carried out, and built. 

First, I want to look at Ruskin and Viollett-Le-Duc. Both of these men were very fervent devotees to the Gothic, more specifically High Gothic era of architecture. They were each also enthusiasts of the use of stone. Both Ruskin and Viollett-Le-Duc shared a similar view on how materials should be used. In Ruskin's Seven Lamps, he states "the painting of surfaces to represent some other material, as in the marbling of wood..." Viollett-Le-Duc was also known to share similar feelings, claiming that if one were using the material of iron, then it should be used as such and never hidden behind or inside a wall. Duc was a known advocate of using iron everywhere he could, even in ornamentation. Having said that, this is where the similarities end. In Pevsner's book, he quotes Ruskin saying that he hated "the use of cast or machine-made ornaments of any kind." Here we see the first of many differences in these great architects of their time: Ruskin, who was completely against the machine, and Viollett-Le-Duc, who embraced it.  

One difference really stands out at me above all the others outlined here. It is well-known that Ruskin was Protestant, as his Seven Lamps refers to seven morals or virtues which he considered vital to architecture and promoted a more "Protestant form of Gothic." Throughout his designs, there is a clear religious element behind his thought. Viollet-Le-Duc however, was...agnostic? "It is ridiculous to believe there is a God as it is impertinent to maintain that there is none." ~ Viollett-Le-Duc (Pevsner 16) How can one who does not believe (technically) in a God of any kind, design/restore these holy sites for the worship of one? Yet Le-Duc seems to not need any "divine" inspiration as he magnificently restores such cathedrals as the Vezelay. One possible answer, in fact the only one I have been able to decode, is that Le-Duc was a man of science, deriving inspiration not from above, but inside as he was a well-known study of anatomy and biology. Ironic, for these have been the left and right, black and white, astrological-dividing factors among people for centuries: for some there is God, for the rest, science.

Basilique a Vezelay

Another huge difference among these two is the issue of restoration. Restoration has always been on the tongues of architects, but in the mouths of Ruskin and Viollet-Le-Duc, the word leaves a completely different taste to each. Ruskin was very against restoration, he believed that ancient buildings should be preserved and no attempt should be made to erase the "history" that a building has accumulated in its decay. In contrast, enter Viollett-Le-Duc. "To restore a building is to recreate it in a complete form, indeed a form which might have never existed." ~ Viollett-Le-Duc (Dictionnaire raisonne' de l'architecture, 1866) Duc was a master at restoring buildings of all kinds, such as the Medieval Fortress of Carcassonne.

Carcassonne, completed in 1853

With regards to Semper, Semper's ideas on architecture were very much rooted in his influences, particularly the renaissance and neoclassical works he studied. He introduced sterotomic architecture, which is simply a system based on the relationships between load and supporting structure, instead of focusing on the continuity of volume as was the previous norm. A key concept of Semper's was style. He believed that the style of architecture was only true if its forms were influenced by only the most important of factors, to him meaning socio-political conditions. He also developed The Four Elements of Architecture: hearth, platform, roof and enclosure. 

Interior of Semper Opera

Semper had a very eccletic style, meaning he wasn't afraid to draw upon a variety of different architectural styles, quite often combining many of them into each one of his singular projects. Now although Ruskin and Le Duc might not have agreed with Semper on this, in fact Ruskin and Semper may have not gotten along at all, but there is one thing Semper shares with the likes of Le-Duc. Semper was a big advocate of using local materials and craftsman on his projects, something he and Viollett-Le-Duc have in common. Oddly enough, Le-Duc was also into the use of polychrome, the use different colors to invoke feelings and emotion, as you can see in evidence from the multi-colored spires of Carcassonne and the interior of the Nave of St. Chappelle. Semper is also noted in the use of polychrome, as he intentionally "paints with different colors, paints with different emotions."

One can be sure that although there are a couple things of which these three men hold in common, they are each independently great forerunners and models to the society that is architecture.today.

Semper Opera in Dresden