Talk:Architectural history

Herodotus and Greek theory

I don't know why this is on here... it doens't seem to be to be realted to architecture at all... --Ducio1234 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Herodotus (c. 485 to 425 BC), a Greek historian, was born at Halicarnassus, Asia Minor. He traveled widely in Asia Minor and the Middle East, and in 443 BC joined the colony of Thurii, from where he visited Sicily and Lower Italy. On his travels, he collected material for his great narrative history, which gave a record of the wars between the Greeks and the Persians. Cicero (106 to 43 BC), the great Roman philosopher and stateman, credited Herodotus as "the father of history," for his written record of major events in Greek's long period of rule over the ancient world."

Page needs to be rewritten

I agree that this page is important and needs to be rewritten. For example, to state that architectural history in the nineteenth century was formalistic is false. In Victorian Britain, Pugin, Ruskin, Street and others wrote about architectural history as profoundly connected to societal change. And the architect as a heroic genius (a trope worthy of undermining, certainly) dates from the Renaissance, not the 19th century.

This page used to be a redirect to architectural style, but I turned it into an autonomous stub. The reason why: many historical evolutions in architecture can't be fit into 'styles', most importantly in the 20th Century; and it would be good to have a set of pages that 'tell the story of architecture' in full text (as is the case with art history). It's a lot of work, but should be rewarding... Spinster 16:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, this page should be split up, leave an intro paragraph for each section and then link to the full article. There is already a so called 'architectual history' series that contains links to pages named simmilarly to the sections here. I don't think its a template, and for the moment its on the Islamic architecture page, however all but the link to its self is dead. Coolhoot 02:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Critical Regionalism Vs post modernism.

I'm not so sure that the critical regionalism movement should be under "modernism and beyond," but I'm sure that it doesn't belong under post-modernism. it's a response to local conditions, with a nod to modern technology, but it isn't a reaction to modernism at all. infact some critical regionalist designs can be quite modern. --naught101 00:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russian architecture

Please comment on the dispute at talk:Russian architecture. Some editors contend that examples of architecture of medieval Kievan Rus which lie in the territory of modern Ukraine may not be mentioned in an article entitled "Russian architecture". Other editors contend that the article is neutral as written. Please help resolve this. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 21:30 Z

Whole article is slanted

This article needs to be rewritten without this focus on 'critical theory'. Too much is given over to theory. While architectural history naturally has to contend with the theortical problems surrounding the writing and interpretation of history, the article in its current form gives far too much weight to what may be considered a marginal theoretical problem. The contributions of architectural historians, people like Summerson, Watkin, Pevsner, etc. need to be given much more attention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.6.51 (talk • contribs) .
We should at least remember that Pevsner is beyond out of date when we think about this problem...Fixifex 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

architectural history: main article

The first article of the series Architecural history that acts as the heading is very questionable. It makes bold unsupported claims about roman architecture in contrast to greek architecture being somehow displaced from reality. It suggests that roman architecture has lost the social power of public spaces to the construction of ornamental facades..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.39.241 (talk • contribs) .

History is not whole

Two types of widespread buildings need be somehow categorized. The North American subarban house is neither modernist nor regionalist. Most office buildings and shopping centers until postmodernism are surely not modernist either. The New Urbanist movement should be added. It differs from critical regionalism. Surely many more buildings have already been built under new urbanist priciples than under deconstructivist principles (deconstructivism is expensive and technology dependant, so it's not that widely practiced)

Not only greece or rome had a history of architecture

the main history of archetecture should not be emphasised in the greece,rome and western europe.It is just one style of architecture,not the whole!

I think if you read the article again you will see that eastern architecture is represented under headings for chinese indian islamic etc. greco roman architecture is relevent to western architecture and so are represented as subheadings of western architecture - i've removed the npov tag.--Mcginnly | Natter 09:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there are a sub-entry Regional architecture which classify all the so-called regional history in contrast to Western architecture.How can Western architecture stand for the main history of architect and others only represent the Regional history？Ksyrie 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! thanks for the clarification - that makes more sense now. Yeah the Regional architecture section at the end of the article is a bit of a peculiarity. I'll have a think about how the article could be better structured, but clearly writing the architectural history of every country in the world on one page is not going to be practical and regional trends might be a better approach.--Mcginnly | Natter 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should rename the article History of western architecture and cover other cultures only when they have an effect on western architecture. -- Petri Krohn 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the encyclopedia to have an overview of global architectural history; Curtis, Fletcher, Cropplestone have all managed it - I think it's a worthy aspiration, but needs some thought as to how it might be best handled. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the difference between Architecture and buildings? I think that the old litteratur like Vitruvius, Alberti etc. have been the first to use the term Architecture. Thats the reason that western architecture must have more space than other forms. You have to pick the essentiel about the term architecture and then tell about other forms and other cultures. You will find western forms in new shapes in most of the countries in the world. The value of others cultures buildings must not be the main in this article because the term architecture are made in western society. Treating all the same will be wrong because the influence are not equale.--Nina-no 15:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

totally biased,you have keep the Ancient Egyptian architecture as Western ones while claims that the term of architecture were only mentioned by greek and romain?you exclude other styles of architectures just because they had (maybe they had the term architecture)no architecture as a term,so why not exclude the Ancient Egyptian architecture from architecture?--Ksyrie 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic" or "Western"?

Just a question: If Sassanian, Byzantine, Sumerian and Egyptian architecture are to be counted as "Western", why is not the Islamic architecture – which is mainly the outcome of the former?

That's a question I want to raise also--Ksyrie 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Rather than splitting this article into sections which are just précis of the main articles, couldn't it treat with the whole history of architecture; its more or less linear development, if there is such a thing; and if not, its themes, with stated comparisons rather than insulated blocks of text? Njál 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the main contributions are sewers and also cement by the ancient romans.http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_inventions.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.214.9 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Simplistic

Students of archtiectural history should be warned that the page is quite simplistic. Hopefully soon, someone will step up to produce a more sophisticated introduction into architectural history.Wolfensberger 19 Nov 2006

Indian gallery moved from main page after revert

Ancient Architecture-warning

This section contains a lot of generalities. For example the sentence "Cities would mark a contained sacred space over the wilderness of nature outside," is a notion of the city that derive from the Romans. The Mesopotamians, who were much earlier, had different views on their cities. and so forth. The ancient Chinese did not have cities until very late in the game. Brosi 02:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article.

In line with Art History, there needs to be a clear definition as to what actually constitutes Architectural history.

Moreover, because it is the name of a subject of study, both words should be capitalised Architectural History in line with Art History.

My proposal here is that two seperate articles are carved out of this one. (It won't be hard, since most of the relevant material hasn't been writtten anyway.)

An article entitled History of Architecture should be created containing a brief summary of styles and periods of architecture, with directions to the main pages. (NOTE: this title currently redirects to Architectural history). It should give the reader of lesser experience, say higher school student, a quick reference within Wikkipedia to the style and period they want to know more about, and a way of finding the most basic facts, by comparision with the other brief summaries.

So, for example, a glance at the relevant passages should inform a student that the Ancient Greeks used columns and lintels and that the Romans also employed hemispherical arches.

By my proposal, the present article entitled Architectural history should not contain any potted descriptions of architectural style whatsoever. It should concern itself with the manner in which architecture has been studied as history. The article should appeal to a student at a higher level, dealing with changing philosophies, rationales, interpretations.

It should answer questions like-

How is history be studied from architecture?
What are the earliest descriptions of architecture?
Who wrote the earliest architectural history?
Who are the great names in the study and intepretation of architecture?
Has the interpretation of architecture remained constant or changed?
What are some of the significant changes in the way architecture has been interpreted?

This article should include reference to

The Biblical description of Solomon's Temple
The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World
Pliny the Elder
Brunelleschi
European travellers tales of the East.
Asian travellers tales of Europe.
The application and use of terms and style names eg. Baroque, Moorish, Gothic, Plateresque, Hindoo etc.
John Ruskin, the Cambridge Camden Society etc
Banister Fletcher

etc etc etc I'm sure that other people can add to this list, particularly with regards to Architectural history in languages other than English.

There should be clear disambigs so that the student can get up the page that most suits their level of enquiry.

--Amandajm 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully supportive of this idea which I believe DVD RW has suggested before. For such a large topic we need to have some confines and frames of reference within which to work. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read the list, it seems a little arbitrary - perhaps we can refine and expand it with more pupose and talk able the discipling of 'architectural history' ie. the work of architectural historians.

1. I'm not sure about the soloman's temple inclusion. Why just this description from the Christian, Islamic and Judaic texts? - are there other buildings talked about by other religious texts? I'm also a little worried about opening the door to discussions of 'mythical' buildings (I know there's a basic description but there's no concrete archaelogical evidence for it's existance) Can we really demonstrate that the Temple and it's description influenced architecture, rather than just assume? If it must stay then the article needs to focus on the influence the descriptions of the temple had on future architecture. We're still going to be on a hiding to nothing for western bias though.

2. The Seven wonders of the world - happy to see them in History of Architecture where "the reader of lesser experience, say higher school student, (can get) a quick reference" - but isn't this article supposed to be a bit more learned? We don't need to talk about buildings at all in this article, only how they inspired the evolution of architectural history as a discipline.

3. So we include Pliny the elder and Brunelleschi - but we skip Vitruvius, The greeks, Imhotep, Palladio, Gothic masterbuilders, the whole of islamic architecture, etc.etc. if this is going to be the more academic article we need to include on the basis of merit not 'pop' appeal.

4. Tales of the East and West - not sure we need these, what are they adding.

5. Style names - we can't name every style on the planet in this article, there are lists on wikipedia already anyway.

6. Ruskin, Bannister fletcher -yes! Let's add to these, viollet-de-luc, siegfried gideon, copplestone, curtis, Harry Francis Mallgrave, robert venturi, charles jencks, Pevsner, Charles Robert Cockerell, Palladio, Colen Campbell, Leone Battista Alberti.

7. The trick will be to define the distinctions between the study of 'architectural history' and 'architectural theory' - and also the interdependance of the two. Clearly they both go hand in hand. As a direction for the article we can probably say, that studies of architectural history evolved from a desire to propel architectural theory, that arch. history only fairly recently became a discipline in it's own right.

9. We really need to discuss the overlap and interdependance between 18th and 19th century advances in archaelogy.

10. I know absolutely nothing about architectural history as a discipline other than western. Is there equivalence in China, Japan, India. I'm almost certain there was in the Islamic world. I do know a little about Mughal architecture, they did look to their Timurid forebears for influence and the precedents they found there influenced their archtecture - here's some paragraphs of an article I'm on with, although I'm not sure how useful they'll be here. What the chronicles or academics don't say or know, is how or who studied the precendents, just that they were studied and used as influences, the role of the architects are diminished in favour of the patrons - I wonder if this is also typical of far eastern architecture?

The erection of tombs to honour the dead is the subject of a theological dialogue exemplified by the varied ways in which the Mughals built their funery monuments. Orthodox islam found tombs problematic because a number of Hadith forbade the construction of tombs as irreligious. As a culture also attempting to accomodate and assimilate the local Hindu populous, opposition came from their tradition which held dead bodies as impure, and by extension, the structures over them as similarly impure. However for a majority of muslims, the spiritual power (barakat) of visiting the resting places (ziyarat) of those venerated in islam was a force by which greater personal sanctity could be achieved. So for many, tombs could be considered legitimate providing they did not strive for pomp and were seen as a means to provide a reflection of paradise (Jannah) here on earth. The ebb and flow of this debate can be seen in the Moghul's dynastic mausoleums stretching back to the Tomb of Timur in Samarkand. Tombs are sometimes open to the air and plane, sometimes enclosed with elaborate domes and richly decorated........

The concept of the paradise garden was one the Mughals had brought with them from the traditions of the Persian Timurid gardens. It was the first architectural expression the Mughals made in the Indian sub-continent, fulfilling diverse functions with strong symbolic meanings. Known as the Charbagh, in its ideal form it was laid out as a square subdivided into four equal parts. The symbolism of the garden and its divisions are noted in mystic Islamic texts which describe paradise as a garden filled with abundant trees flowers and plants. Water also plays a key role in these descriptions: In Paradise four rivers source at a central spring or mountain, and separate the garden into north, west, south and east. The centre of the garden, at the intersection of the divisions is highly symbolically charged and is where, in the ideal form, a pavilion, pool or tomb would be situated.

Perhaps we can try and give this article a really clear direction and parameters. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manueline style

This article does not contain one word about the Manueline style of architecture, prevalent in Portugal in the early 16th century, leading to some of the most important buildings in Portugal, such as the Jerónimos Monastery in Belém, near Lisbon. JoJan 15:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

expert

Since this article is not up to wikipedia standards. I have added the {{expert}} tag.--Sefringle 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

building types?

Would it be appropriate to include buildings types under this heading? I could imagine excellent entries on temples, baths, churches, museums, insane asylums, and so on.

Interpreter, please

"The establishment of architectural history as a discipline in the West is reflected in the greater historical clarity of western architectural development, whilst the understanding of non-western architecture often proceeds with less historical context."

So what does it mean? Please explain how ""The establishment of architectural history as a discipline in the West" can possibly be "reflected in the greater historical clarity of western architectural development". wtf is "historical clarity of ... development"? Is it supposed to mean a "clearer understanding of" or "more in-depth knowledge of" or what?

There are a number of equally confusing/confused sentences in this article which tell the reader almost nothing because their writer needed to double-check to see if they actually said what was intended. It's meant to mean something. So please fix!

--Amandajm 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix this please somebody

Historiography is not my subject. Can someone please write this in sentences that are grammatically correct and can be interpreted by, say, your average undergraduate. If that's not possible it needs scrapping.

"In the 19th century, architecture was understood as formal perspective, Does the writer mean perspective or discipline? Or does the writer mean "from" a formal perspective? emphasizing the morphological Why use include "morphological" when it is not part of most people's vocabulary, doesn't link and doesn't add anything? when characteristics of form, technique and materials. This period also saw the emergence of the individual architect,No it didn't. That had already happened the amalgamation of whose conscious intentions "Whose" conscious intentions? We jump from talking about the architect (singular) to an "amalgamation of intentions". The writer of this needs to figure out a way to move from the singular to the plural! would become the subject of artistic movements. In these respects, In which blinking respects? This doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph. Did someone jam something in the middle? architectural history is a sub-discipline of art history that focuses on the historical evolution of principles and styles in the design of buildings and cities."

Someone with an interest in this page needs to sort out all these issues.

--Amandajm 05:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of page to History of Architecture

Prehaps somebody can explain why the content was moved here? It really doesn't make sense to have both articles, as they more or less discuss the same topics.--Sefringle^Talk 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is this page deals with the academic discipline of Architectural history whereas the History of architecture is an attempt at just that. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as we have with Art history and History of Art. Johnbod 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural History is different from the History of Architecture

I notice that the entry for "Architectural History" now directs a reader to the "History of Architecture" entry and are no longer separate entries. The two need to be treated differently. The old entry for the former rightly placed emphasis on the study of the history of architecture as a discipline, tracing its roots back to antiquity. The "Architectural History" entry should be resuscitated.

Archhist (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, considering that the above posts reinforce they should be separate articles.--Ducio1234 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]