Durand and the Science of Architecture
Author(s): Leandro Madrazo
Source: Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) , Sep., 1994, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Sep.,
1994), pp. 12-24
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools
of Architecture, Inc.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1425306
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Architectural
Education (1984-)
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Durand and the Science of Architecture
LEANDRO MADRAZO, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
This essay addresses some critical issues
concerning the systematization of architectural
knowledge. The work of Jean-Nicolas-Louis
Durand provides a context within which to
discuss the degree to which architecture can
be subjected to a process of systematization.
Durand's work is analyzed by reconstructing the
logical steps in the development of his theoretical
system. As a result of this reconstruction, some
of the key issues of his theory are unveiled. Thus,
for example, it will be shown that an idea of type
emerges progressively as his theory matures. The
examination of Durand's ideas is based not only
on his writings, but also on the drawings that
illustrate his books. Indeed, an idea that runs
through the whole essay is that graphic representations
play a crucial role in the systematization
of architectural knowledge.
THE QUEST TO DETERMINE THE SCIENTIFIC NAture
of the discipline of architecture has
been a permanent goal in the architectural
tradition. During the fifteenth century, Renaissance
theorists, under the direct influence
of Vitruvius, strove to build a scientific
basis for architecture. The complete unity
that art and science enjoyed during the Renaissance,
began to break down during the
course of the following centuries. The seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries saw the
creation of new scientific disciplines, each
one having its own object of knowledge and
methods. Knowledge progressed rapidly in
the newly created branches of science, and
the results of this progress could be seen in
the succession of technological achievements
that quickly transformed the built
environment and life itself.
By the end of the eighteenth century,
there was a growing concern that architecture
was falling behind the new sciences in
terms of progress. As a result, attempts began
to be made to construct a science of architecture.
The work of Jean-Nicolas-Louis
Durand (1760-1834) epitomizes this effort
to achieve a systematization of architectural
knowledge. The task he set for himself was
to discover the generic principles that are
implicit in works of architecture. In pursuing
that goal, Durand necessarily touched
upon some of the dilemmas that are inherent
to architecture: particular versus general,
abstract versus physical, subjectivity
versus objectivity, and art versus science. Because
of this, his theoretical work transcends
the limits of a particular historical
period; it has a timeless value that makes it
a necessary reference in any discussion
about the systematization of architectural
knowledge.'
The General Principles of Architecture
Durand's contribution to architecture
stems from his activity as a teacher and
theoretician. In 1796, he became a professor
of architecture at the Ecole Polytechnique.
The school had been founded two
years earlier with the goal of bringing scientific
knowledge closer to practical life.
Some of the most prestigious scientific
minds of the time, like Monge, Lagrange,
and Laplace, were also professors of the
Polytechnique. The students of Durand
were not architects but rather engineers.
Little time was allotted for their architectural
training.2
Confronted with the task of teaching
architecture under these conditions,
Durand found it necessary to develop a
theory of architecture that could form the
basis of his lessons. His theoretical work is
summed up in two books: the Recueil et
Paralldle des idifices de tout genre, anciens et
modernes, published between 1799 and
1801, and Precis des lefons d'architecture
donnees ~h l'tcole polytechnique, published
for the first time between 1802 and 1805.
Durand believed that architectural
education should not be based on the
study of particular buildings or styles: "It is
not in such a manner that one should study
architecture."3 For him, the study of any
subject, whether scientific or artistic, had
to be based on the study of general principles:
"A man who plans a career as a playwright
does not learn how to do this or that
tragedy; a musician this or that opera; a
painter this or that painting. Before composing,
in whatever genre, one must know what
one composes with. "4
To identify the general principles of
architecture, Durand followed a logical
path that started by verifying that which
confirms unquestionably the existence of
architecture itself, that is to say, by recognizing
the existence of the buildings of the
past. This first step is exemplified by the
Recueil, in which the buildings from the
past are collected and classified. In a second
step, the analysis of past buildings revealed
their common features, that is, the
general principles of architecture.5
General Principles and Classification
During the eighteenth century, an intensive
collection and classification of data took
place in different disciplines, especially in
the natural sciences. Linnaeus's Species
Plantarum (1753) and Buffon's Histoire
Naturelle (1749) are the most significant
examples of this spirit of classification that
dominated the epoch. In both books, drawings
of plants and animals appear organized
in tables according to different criteria.
Linnaeus's classification was based on the
reproductive organs of plants, while Buffon
used the historical evolution of animals as
the basis of his classification system.6
Classification and systematics also
influenced architecture. Some of the architecture
books of the time show buildings
organized in tables in much the same way
that animals or plants were shown in biology
books. A significant example of this
Journal ofArchitectural Education, pp. 12-24,
? 1994 ACSA, Inc.
September 1994 JAE 48/1 1 2
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
kind of work is the book Ruines des plus
beaux monuments de la Grkce by JulienDavid
Leroy, first published in 1758. In a
table that appeared in the 1770 edition of
the book, Leroy showed the temples of the
past drawn in plan view and at the same
scale7 (Figure 1).
In their quest for systematization,
both the biologist and the architectural
theorist were using similar conceptual categories;
the species of the natural sciences
corresponding to type in architecture. By
means of these categories, it was possible to
transcend the study of separate individual
examples and to discover more generic
principles that lay behind them. Classification,
therefore, was a technique for extracting
general principles from particular cases.8
Durand's Recueil:
History versus Theory
Similar to Leroy's book, Durand's Recueil
also shows the buildings of the past
grouped according to certain classes. The
categories Durand used generally fall
within two major groups: historical (Egyptian
temples, Roman palaces, Moorish details)
and functional (theaters, markets,
hospitals). There is, however, one plate in
the book that falls outside these two main
categories. The title of the third plate is:
"Round temples" (Figure 2). This is not a
historical or functional classification, but
rather one that considers form as a distinctive
feature of a building.9 This significant
exception among the plates of the Recueil
opens a new path of theoretical development
and anticipates the direction that
Durand took in his next book, the Precis
des le'ons.
What the classification of buildings
according to form also indicates is that in
spite of its appearance, the Recueil cannot
be considered a purely descriptive archaeological
survey. This suspicion is further
confirmed by the fact that Durand consciously
modified some of the plans to
make them appear more regular and geometric
than they actually were. In the
plates that correspond to the Roman ruins,
for example, it can be seen that the drawings
are not so much a faithful description
of some old buildings as idealized images
of them. His justification for this was that
the drawings of the Roman ruins made by
other authors before him, like those made
by Palladio or Piranesi, could also not be
considered authentic.'o
It can be asserted that what Durand
was intending with the simplification and
regularization of the drawings was to use
the individual buildings to illustrate some
generic principles of architecture. This is
the reason he found it necessary to eliminate
individual or accidental traits by subjecting
the representations of buildings to a
process or regularization. In this context,
1. J.-D. Leroy, comparative analysis of temples and churches,
1770.
---- ~ -AA.--
Oo?? I'L
4L i
jl m Ci~MEZElP
dw? pd
A.44- d 4Y,4,ilu r? d, ~
ti: Q @i tr~AW.W" -W i?lop...
A? r- ~n1 _i~~ " '
2. J.N.L. Durand, Temples ronds, Recueil et Parallele des
6difices, 1801.
1 3 Madrazo
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ntroducon -EXEMPIE DESFUNSTES I~FPETS
qui resultent de I'irnolrance ou de 'inAbservatiot deo vrais Printcipes de I'Architecture.
. ... t. . . .. ..
' 9
1
,+ iique
cet Cdficc ac
---- - ----- --------- ---
9Ai ........
11 1 i 1 1ILA
.-,-C A m aa A
LI Z e
3. J.N.L. Durand, E
Iignorance ou de I'
L'Architecture, Pr
antique buil
terial for Durand from which he made a
case about the systematization of architectural
knowledge.
With the Recueil, Durand initiated a
dialectic relationship between past and
present that would continue in his next
book, the Precis des lefons. The second
plate of the Precis shows the plan of Saint
Peter's and next to it, another plan that is
an invention of Durand's. It is based on
the original basilica that once stood on the
same spot where the Basilica of Saint
Peter's was built (Figure 3).
In accordance with the tendency to
simplify existing buildings, as demonstrated
in the Recueil, a different interpretation
of the relationship between the two
plans depicted in the plate can be made.
The plan proposed by Durand could also
be understood as a simplification created
after the existing plan of Saint Peter's, the
purpose being to reveal the true principles
that underlie the complex forms of the actual
design. Thus, the plan that Durand
proposed is the illustration of those principles
that, according to him, were neglected
by the architects of Saint Peter's.
These principles are based on the economy
of means exemplified by the use of grids,
simple geometric figures, and simple
building types.
According to Durand's interpretation
of the history of architecture, even
though true principles had existed in the
past, a progressive distancing from those
original principles had occurred as architecture
evolved. The complex forms of the
existing temple of Saint Peter's, therefore,
were to him nothing more than a derivation
of some original and simple forms.
Behind Durand's interpretation of
history lies a concept of type that, as will
be shown in the following pages, constitutes
one of the main pillars of his theoretical
construct. This concept of type is
based on the distinction between, on the
one side, simple, geometric forms and, on
the other, complex and more architectural
ones. According to this distinction, a type
corresponds to a simple, geometric form,
from which more elaborate forms can be
derived. It is this concept of type that
epitomizes the genuine principles of architecture
that Durand pretended to find.
The Elements of Architecture
To determine the fundamental principles
of architecture, it was first necessary to establish
the basic elements that characterize
it as a discipline. Effectively, just as Euclidean
geometry begins with the definition of
the point and the line, architecture also
needed to have its own axiomatic elements.
The fundamental elements of a
building and, by extension, of architecture
were for Durand those that can be found in
any building, regardless of its style or epoch.
Thus, he argued, the simplest elements
that can be found in most buildings include
walls and openings, columns and the parts
to which they give support, slabs and roofs,
and vaults. These are the lements des
6difices (Figure 4). Porches, lobbies, stairs,
lounges, and courts are those parts of the
buildings, or parties, which result from the
combination of the simplest elements. Finally,
the last step is the ensemble des
6difices, which means to combine the parties
to produce a building."
Durand considers the dlements des
idifices to be "that which words are to discourse,
and notes are to music."12 However,
the comparison of language or music with
architecture is not completely justified in
this case because words and notes are purely
abstract symbols, whereas Durand's dliments
des edifices (walls, columns, and vaults) are
not abstractions, but rather physical components
that make up a building.
September 1994 JAE 48/1 1 4
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
At this point in his theoretical discourse,
Durand ran across one of the permanent
dilemmas of architecture: the
separation between the abstract and the
physical realms.'3 He responded to this dilemma
immediately after defining the
ildments, when he wrote that the study of
those elements will be considered from
two points of view: first, with regard to
materials and construction, and, second,
form and proportions.
The illustration of the elements reflects
this separation of the abstract and
physical realms (Figure 4). Some elements,
like the pitched roofs and slabs, are depicted
in much the same way as they would
appear in a construction manual. The
drawings of vaults, on the other hand, are
more conceptual and schematic. They are
reduced to geometric figures and symbols.
In the light of Durand's elements, a
distinction between building and architecture
has to be made. As the title of the
plate properly indicates, Durand's elements
are in fact the elements of buildings,
but they could barely become the elements
of architecture. Hence, walls and vaults,
considered as physical components, could
constitute the elements of a building science
but not of a science ofarchitecture. To establish
a science of architecture, its basic
elements should be abstract rather than
physical."4
Apart from the separation between
abstract and physical realms, Durand faced
a second issue in his attempt to define the
elements common to all buildings; that of
the classical orders. Because Durand had
previously acknowledged in the Recueil
that there are buildings in the past that do
not derive from the Greek classical model,
considering the parts of the classical order
as fundamental elements would contradict
the basic premise that the elements should
pertain to any building. However, a look at
the illustration shows that, together with
itiSIENTS DES iDarprcYS.
D ID
:.. . ........ . ......
. . .... .. ... . .......
tol
?~lip
sfx",
i 1 :55
4. J.N.L. Dur
1821.
the schematic representations of vaults and
the more detailed ones of other building
components, the drawings of columns appear,
which still carry connotations of the
classical language. In this case, the illustration
reveals some unresolved issues in
Durand's theoretical construct.
The conflictive issues that are implicit
in the definition of elements adopted by
Durand are revealed in the next step of the
development of his theoretical construct,
namely at the moment that he introduces a
generic method of composition to produce
buildings. As we will see in the next section,
faced with the difficulty of defining abstractions
that are specific to architecture,
Durand turned to geometry to borrow its
abstractions. Only then was it possible for
architecture to exist in the realm of abstraction,
making attempts to convert it into a
scientific discipline meaningful. The price
for borrowing these abstractions, however,
may be that some of the essential characteristics
of architecture are lost when architecture
is represented through the abstractions
of another discipline.
The Method of Composition
Once the elements of architecture have
been defined, the next logical step, according
to Durand's strategy, is to define a
method of composition by which the most
primitive elements may be combined, in a
logical fashion, into more complex ones to
produce a building. The definition of architecture
at the beginning of the Precis is
consistent with this principle of composition:
"Architecture is the art of composing
and executing allpublic and private buildings."15
To design, then, is to compose, that
is to say, to combine some previously determined
elements according to certain procedures
that can be made explicit.'6
1 5 Madrazo
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
MARCHB A' SUfVRBE p. Y C.t/,,',rN
a seo awa 1
- -- -- - ... ... .. .......
eg~ Situatiou A1?---
i .s Partisrincpale Tr Mur
... ... .. . .... ..
44-1 O
. 4,, .
. . ~.. . .. .--- -- ---- - ---------- ---------,--
f7T- - -- 7v 7-
~...-..........,.............
wa~mlar O Situation
-4 .6u?cn~ir aes Prtiessecon Mac
Oun
aes C;7 CA
T-r a r o~v
5. J.N.L. Durand, Marche a suivre dans la composition d
Projet quelconque, Precis des lecons, 1813.
-~~~ - ... ',il
?--H-A7,.,-ii-4::#j--!!--4,.
1 i A -TT
4 9 A -Till
K -- ?-.
- =/; I= ------L. . . ..
6. Method of composition in the order proposed by Durand.
Method to Follow in the Composition
ofAny Project
In the didactic manner that characte
his whole work, Durand describe
method graphically as a step-by-step
cess. This method is illustrated in th
plate of the first volume under the
"Marche d suivre dans la compositio
Projet quelconque."
At first sight, it looks as if the
pose of the method is to produce a
classical building in a logical way. T
not the case, however, because th
that Durand is pursuing with his m
is independent of stylistic considerati
The process described in the pla
based on six stages (Figure 5). The
stage consists of the layout of the mai
of the composition (nombre et situatio
parties principales). In the second st
new grid of secondary axes complem
the primary ones (nombre et situati
parties secondaires). Then, walls are l
along the axes (trace' des murs), and
umns are placed within the areas bo
by walls (placement des colonnes). I
fifth stage, the walls, porticoes, stair
other architectural elements are dra
plan view. Finally, the elevation and
section are generated from the plan.
A fundamental aspect of the me
is the fact that it can be described by
of a graphic. The graphic, in this c
much more than a mere illustration
procedure that could be described by
means; it is the expression of an arc
tural concept by means that are exclu
architectural. Because of this, a det
analysis of the illustration is not only
nent, but also necessary to assess the
of the method proposed by Durand.
Analysis of the Illustrated Method
Although Durand's previous taxon
(6liments des edifices-parties-ensemb
September 1994 JAE 48/1 1 6
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
edifices) might suggest that a method of
composition should start with the selection
of a set of architectural elements, his
method does not reflect this. The illustrated
method does not start with a selection of
walls and vaults, for example. Rather, it
starts with a geometric scheme made up of
lines in plan view. Moreover, the idea of a
method being a set of rules for combining
simple elements into more complex ones
cannot be derived from the illustration either.
Durand's method does not explain
how to combine walls and domes into lobbies
or porches.17
What Durand actually described is a
step-by-step transformation of a rough
scheme into a detailed representation of a
building, that is to say, a transformation of
geometry into architecture (Figure 6). At
the beginning of the process, the basic features
of the design are determined by
means of geometric elements in plan view.
Then the points and lines of the scheme are
replaced by representations of architectural
elements, such as columns and walls. At the
end of the process, a reference to some architectural
form and style is made through
the explicit representations of architectural
elements in section and elevation.'8
To be consistent with the idea of a
composition being a combination of elements
and rules, Durand's method should
have started with a set of architectural elements
rather than with geometric lines.
However, those architectural elements
would have inevitably carried connotations
of a certain architectural form or style. This
is precisely what Durand tried to avoid because
the purpose of his method is to exemplify
some fundamental principles of
architecture. As the title of the illustration
claims, the method needs to be universal; it
cannot be specific to a particular style.
Geometric elements, unlike representations
of architectural form, are not
tied to a particular style; they underlie all
architectural forms regardless of style or
epoch. It is because of this that the method
starts with lines rather than with representations
of walls, columns, or vaults. Therefore,
geometric lines, rather than walls and
domes, constitute the fundamental elements
of the discipline of architecture.
Effectively, this means that, in much
the same way that mathematical operations
rely on the existence of numbers as abstractions,
a method for designing a building
also needs a set of fundamental abstractions
that are specific to the discipline of
architecture. In the absence of those abstractions,
Durand turns to geometry to
borrow from it, the fundamental elements
of architecture. However, by doing that,
Durand raises some doubts about whether
it is possible for a genuine "science of architecture"
to exist.
More than anything else, Durand's
illustration of the method of composition
should be taken as an expression of his perception
of the relationship between architecture
and geometry-one of the constant
issues of debate in the architectural tradition.
The question that the illustration
raises is where and how the boundary between
architecture and geometry can be
defined, or in other words, where geometry
stops and architecture begins in the
process of design.
Looking at the Process in Reverse
Because, as Durand maintained, geometric
elements underlie all architectural forms,
they can be considered the fundamental
elements of architecture. Geometric
schemes, therefore, are the result of a process
of abstraction of architectural forms.
This relationship between architecture and
geometry is manifested more clearly when
the order of the transformations in
Durand's method is reversed (Figure 7).
This is, in fact, a more accurate way to
read the illustration because the process
does not conclude with the creation of the
final design, as Durand pretends, but
rather starts from the design of an existing
project made by the architect Percier.'9
.....-. ......- - .. . .. -- - - ----.---+ --
7. Durand's method of composition reversed.
1 7 Madrazo
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
..mB Lse swS u ane ss r ..
O ] ?UE m O EI
+ o " Q
m.Fl...
83 ~ ii~~III~El 11
m ~ ~ ~~ Ose ~ t~Li
$- ~ti #~ ~t -I- E-i?j
8. J.N.L. Durand, Ensembles d'edifices resultants des divisions
du quarre, du parallelogramme et de leurs combinaisons avec le
cercle, Precis des lecons, 1802.
When the order of the transformations
is reversed, the plan based on the existing
design becomes the first stage in the
process. The next step is to minimize any
references to a particular style so the design
is reduced to a plan made up of basic architectural
elements, such as walls and columns.
It is possible to create an even more
abstract representation of a building by replacing
the walls and columns with pure
geometric elements, for example, a set of
axes and an orthogonal grid. By continuing
with the process of abstraction, the essential
characteristics of the design are
revealed when all references to architectural
form have been eliminated, leaving
only the geometric scheme.
The Discovery of the Type
In his article, "On the Typology ofArchitecture,
"Giulio Carlo Argan writes that "in
the process of comparing and superimposing
individual forms so as to determine the
'type,' particular characteristics of each individual
building are eliminated and only
those remain which are common to every
unit of the series. The 'type' therefore, is
formed through a process of reducing a
complex of formal variants to a common
root form. [The type] has to be understood
as the interior structure of a form or as a
principle which contains the possibility of
infinite formal variation and further structural
modification of the type itself. "20
According to the method described
by Durand, the fundamental properties of
a design are already present in the geometric
scheme of the plan. In the illustration
of the method of composition (Figure 5),
the cross shape is one of the fundamental
properties of the design. In spite of the formal
transformations that take place in the
process of composition, the characteristic
cross shape can be recognized in every
stage of that process. This suggests that the
initial geometric scheme can be considered
the type, according to Argan's definition.
As was discussed earlier, Durand's
initial intent was to present geometric figures
as an abstraction of architectural
form; that is, the geometric scheme is the
result of "reducing a complex of formal
variants to a common root form," using
Argan's terms. In the illustrations of the
later editions of the Pricis, however, the
geometric scheme becomes the generator
of the architectural form, rather than a byproduct
of it. At that point, the geometric
figure becomes the "principle which contains
the possibility of infinite formal
variation and further structural modification
of the type itself," as Argan contends.
This change in the relationship between
geometric figure and architectural form
can be traced through the evolution of the
plates of the successive editions of the
Pr&cis.
Type and Geometric Figures
The first edition of the Precis in 1802 includes
a plate named Ensembles d'&difices
resultants des divisions du quarre, du
parallelogramme et de leurs combinaisons
avec le cercle (Figure 8). In spite of the title,
there are no buildings represented in this
illustration; only geometric figures. It can
be assumed, however, that each one of the
figures is the abstraction of one or more
buildings, as it is the case with the illustration
of the marche a suivre (Figure 5).
In a new edition of the Pricis, the socalled
Nouveau Precis that appeared in
1813, the former plate is replaced by a new
one (Figure 9), which shows geometric elements
and buildings together.2' The correspondence
between geometric figures and
buildings is made explicit. In most of the
illustrations, this correspondence is
univocal; that is, for every building, there
is one geometric figure assigned to it. In a
September 1994 JAE 48/1 1 8
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
few other examples, several buildings correspond
to only one geometric figure.
A step further in the changing relationship
between buildings and geometric
figures is taken in the drawings of the
Partie Graphique des cours d'architecture,
which appeared in 1821. In the plate titled
Ensembles ddificesformes par la combinaison
de parties de cinq entr'-axes de largeur (Figure
10), the geometric schemes are drawn
in the center of the illustration. Two different
buildings are represented in plan, section,
and elevation on either side of the
schema. In much the same fashion that is
illustrated in the plate of the marche h
suivre, this plate also describes a process for
arriving at architectural form from an initial
geometric scheme. The starting point,
in this case, is represented by a scheme
made up of five points, one placed at each
of the four corners and the center of the
square. The corners are, in turn, connected
by lines. Two more abstract schemes follow
the first one, suggesting a step-by-step progression
toward the final architectural plan.
However, unlike the illustration of the previous
method of composition, the process
results in two different architectural plans,
rather than one.
In summary, while in the first edition
of the Precis the geometric scheme is
just the abstraction of the architectural
form (Figure 11), in the later editions, this
process is inverted. The geometric figure is
no longer a simplification of an existing architectural
form, but rather the starting
point for the creation process of a design
(Figure 12). Therefore, it can be affirmed
that an idea of type, in the terms expressed
by Argan, is implicit in Durand theories,
even though he did not use the term in his
writings.22
For Argan, the concept of type conveys
a distinction between objectivity and
subjectivity in the design process. The objective
part of the design process is repreiFsultants
dp aiverses Comiinaaor Horisoutalces.et Verticolem,
.. . ."
...H
... . q-a.u
u
......... ......
9. J
ENSEMBLES D'EDIFJCES
rorlads par la2 collibillatiou tie Pill-tis Ile vilq cljt?A%'ttie lar g-elt1%rt?
+ +
larsjur l'ou compose- Ll LX Y 2t~r~
I M II (? t
UU 111cle - F
-T i x
i-:Ik<IL:
LL+I/_ jPILJV AL j
R0 1
10. J.N.L. Durand,
1 9 Madrazo
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
i-i
11. The geometric scheme is the result of the abstraction of
architectural form.
/x
IA
J /
F... I<
Lt E = =ILJ
12. Different architectural forms derived form the same
geometric scheme.
sented by the selection of a t
jective part corresponds to th
formal variations that can be
the type. A similar separation
jective and subjective process
Durand's plate of the Ensem
(Figure 10). The process of
starts by selecting a geometr
this case the square. This is t
part of the process. The subje
exemplified by the two form
that, among many others, c
from the initial geometric figur
Architecture: Art and Science
In a passage of the Precis, Durand reflects
on the double artistic and scientific nature
of architecture:23 "Architecture is a science
and an art all at the same time: like a science,
architecture demands knowledge; like
art, it requires talent. Talent is none other
than the just and easy application of knowledge.
This correctness and facility cannot be
acquired except by sustained exercise and
multiple applications. In the sciences, one can
know somethingperfectly after having done it
a single time. But in the arts, one cannot
know how to execute something well without
having done so a considerable number of
times. "24
The division between objective and
subjective components in architecture is
expressed here as an opposition between
science and art. For Durand, science is
based on generic principles: those that, like
the Pythagorean theorem in geometry,
need only be defined once.25 However, in
architecture, unlike the sciences, the accumulation
of individual works over time
does not result in an objective body of
knowledge. There is also an artistic component
in architecture, which is based on
particular applications rather than generic
principles.
September 1994 JAE 48/1 20
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Even though Durand admits to the
double nature of architecture, artistic and
scientific, he cannot mask his predilection
for generic principles. In effect, he maintains
that the architect should first learn
the fundamental principles and then apply
them many times "with talent." These fundamental
principles are precisely what
Durand is searching for architecture. Architectural
knowledge, Durand seems to
reason, is inseparable from the individual
works and their authors. He attempted to
formalize that knowledge, that is, to make
it generic and explicit.
One way to prove that architectural
knowledge can be made objective is by defining
methods for creating buildings. After
a method or methods have been
created, architectural knowledge is no
longer embedded in the buildings themselves,
but rather in the procedures used to
create them. By codifying architectural
knowledge in the form of a method, it becomes
objective: it can be transmitted to
and be applied by other architects; in other
words, it becomes scientific. As a result, architects
would not need to learn architecture
by studying the works of the past, but
rather by learning and practicing abstract
methods of design. According to Durand,
only then could architecture be taught
properly in the schools of architecture.
The idea of method can be considered
the cornerstone of Durand's theories
and his main contribution to the architectural
debate. In effect, the idea that the design
of a building is the result of a rational
procedure had not been suggested in such
a bold manner by anybody before Durand.
In a broader cultural context, Durand's
theoretical system expresses the changes
that science in general and architecture in
particular underwent between the fifteenth
and eighteenth centuries. By the beginning
of the nineteenth century, architecture
could no longer stand as a link between the
world of nature and the artificial world of
human-made creations. Architecture became
part of a system of abstract ideas and
concepts, self-sufficient and detached from
the natural world, its ultimate purpose to
replace nature itself.26
Architecture: Buildings or Methods
Durand's attempt to systematize architecture
had a notable precedent in the work
carried out by Palladio in the Quattro
Libri. Both Durand and Palladio attempted
to arrive at some generic principles
of architecture that transcended
individual works, and both attempted to
express those principles by graphic
means.27
Palladio showed most of his designs
for villas together in the second book of his
Quattro Libri. The different villas were redrawn
in a consistent manner, emphasizing
the aspects that were common to all of
them and eliminating some of the irregularities,
just as Durand did later in his
books. Also, as was the case with Durand,
Palladio was not interested in showing the
particularities of his designs, but rather in
using them as a vehicle for expressing some
of what he believed to be the fundamental
principles of architecture.
In spite of their different backgrounds,
Palladio being a practical architect
and Durand a theorist, the ultimate
goal of both texts, the Quattro Libri and
the Pre'cis, was identical: to determine
some general principles of architecture. To
achieve that goal, Palladio began with the
particular cases and finished, eventually,
with the definition of some generic principles.
Durand, on the other hand, did the
opposite: his primary goal was to define
generic principles that embody the procedures
for, in a second step, creating a
building.
Therefore, even though the underlying
motivation of both works might be
identical, Durand and Palladio's approaches
can be considered antithetical in
another regard because, in contrast to
Durand, Palladio searches first for the general
principles through experimentation
with his own designs. At a certain point in
this process he was able to design a building,
the Villa Rotonda, which embodies his
whole architectural theory. Expressing generic
principles with a single building, as
Palladio does with the Villa Rotonda, is totally
alien to Durand's approach, which is
based on the predominance of the generic
procedure over the individual building. The
application of the sort of composition
mechanism that is proposed by Durand can
lead to endless variations of a single theme.
However, a generic procedure cannot guarantee
the sort of singular building that
stands as a symbol of a whole culture, as is
the case with Palladio's Villa Rotonda.28
Conclusion
The underlying motivations that led
Durand to develop his theoretical system
were not exclusive to his time; they are an
active part of our culture. Few areas of
knowledge have escaped the process of
scientification that has occurred over the
last two hundred years. In the last thirty
years alone, attempts to achieve a formalization
of architectural knowledge have intensified.
Although the motivations have
been different, the common denominator
behind these attempts has been to replace
individual and subjective works with generic
and objective procedures.29 Surprisingly,
architecture has shown some
resistance against such attempts. The result
of these formalizations has not necessarily
been better architecture, but rather no architecture
at all. Therefore, what we can
21 Madrazo
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
still learn from Durand is that the existence
of architecture might depend on the
permanence of those unsolvable dilemmas
he touched on in the process of building
up his theory. If this is so, we might as well
acknowledge that the ultimate consequence
of making architectural knowledge
objective and explicit is to consummate
the death of architecture.
Acknowledgments
In the summer of 1991, Professor Werner
Oechslin and Professor Gerhard Schmitt,
from the Department of Architecture at
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
(ETH), Zurich, organized an exhibition
under the title of Lineamenta-CAAD:
Instrumente einer Architekturwissenschaft.
At that time, I had been involved in the
development and implementation of a
theoretical framework for a course at the
ETH Zurich aimed at bringing together
design and computers. The course was
built on the concept of type.
As a result of seeing the plate of
Durand's method of composition that
Werner Oechslin displayed in the historical
section of the exhibition, I "discovered"
Durand and became interested in studying
his work. I am therefore thankful to Professor
Oechslin for having reintroduced
me to Durand's work and for the subsequent
opportunities of discussing various
aspects of the work presented here. I
would like to thank Gerhard Schmitt for
providing an atmosphere conducive to
work and study. My special thanks to
Sharon Refvem for her comments in reference
to this text.
Notes
1. Interests in method and systematization
seem to be symptomatic of a moment of crisis. Faced
with a conflictive situation, the reaction from the architectural
discipline shows an introspection directed
at identifying the origin of the problem in order to
solve it. It is precisely the sense of crisis that explains
the interest in method, in how to make architecture.
This sense of crisis was present at the end of the eighteenth
century, as classical language started to lose its
exclusivity as the only possible model for architecture.
Also, around 1970, after the great masters of the
Modern Movement had disappeared, architecture entered
a new period and again the method, rather than
the buildings, became the center of attention.
2. Werner Szambien, Jean-Nicolas-Louis
Durand, 1760-1834. De l'imitation la norme
(Paris: Picard, 1984), p. 69. Engineering students at
the Ecole Polytechnique spent one in seven lecture
hours in Durand's course.
3. Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, Precis des
lefons d'architecture donnees a l'Ecole Royale
Polytechnique, vol. 1 (Paris, 1819), p. 28.
4. Ibid., p. 28.
5. Durand's overall strategy to define the
fundamental principles of the discipline of architecture,
from the most simple elements to the methods
to operate on them, is still a reflection of the rationalism
that dominated European culture in the preceding
centuries and, particularly, of the ideas
developed by Descartes in the domain of philosophy.
In the Discours de la methode, published in 1637,
Descartes set up his four basic rules that should serve
as a guide for the mind to solve any kind of problem:
* The first rule was never to accept anything as
true that I did not know evidently to be so....
* The second, to divide each of the difficulties
I was examining into as many parts as possible
and as is required to solve them best
(rule of analysis).
* The third, to conduct my thoughts in an orderly
fashion, commencing with the simplest
and the easiest to know objects, to rise gradually,
as by degrees, to the knowledge of the
most composite things (rule ofsynthesis).
* And last, everywhere to make enumerations
so complete and reviews so general that I
would be sure of having omitted nothing
(rule ofenumeration).
Durand seems to follow these four rules in
his attempt to determine the fundamental principles
of architecture. According to the first rule, the first
step is to recognize what defines architecture in a way
that cannot be denied, that is to say, to start with the
study of the existing buildings. It is for that reason
that the theoretical work of Durand must start with
the Recueil. Then, it is possible to define the fundamental
elements of architecture by analyzing the
buildings of the past. The method of composition
that Durand introduces later, aims at synthesizing
those elements in order to create a building. Finally,
the possible combinations that can be achieved by
applying the method of composition are enumerated
in the engravings of the Precis.
6. Peter Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern
Architecture (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University
Press, 1965), p. 149.
7. Szambien, J.N.L. Durand, p. 28.
Szambien shows some illustrations that preceded the
one by Leroy-Most notably, an illustration by J.-A.
Meissonnier that showed temples at the same scale
but in elevation view. Leroy is the first to show
temples from different periods of the past in the
same scale and in plan view. Collins, Changing Ideals
in Modern Architecture, p. 82, writes, "Being an architect
by training, Leroy was faced with a dilemma,
new to the age, of deciding whether the ruins of antiquity
were to be studied as architectural history or
architectural theory; for he had the perspicacity to
see that the two were not the same thing. He therefore
divided his book in two parts, and in the second
dealing with theory, he suggested that the whole
question of the proportions of the Orders might require
renewed study in the light of his own research."
For Collins, Leroy's illustration made it
necessary to distinguish, for the first time in modern
history, between the history and the theory of archi-
tecture.
8. Philip Steadman, The Evolution of De
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1
29, has contended, "The practical purpose of c
cation in architecture, beyond historical desc
and scientific analysis, lies in the hope that ou
ordering of the variety of buildings of the p
come theoretical principles, which may be app
designing new buildings, of new forms, to
new programmes and new circumstances."
9. A significant precedent in classif
buildings according to their form was establi
Sebastiano Serlio, The Five Books ofArchit
(New York: Dover, 1982; reprint of the Engli
tion of 1611). In the fifth book, Serlio showe
lection of temples and churches that starts w
ideal form of the Renaissance, the circle.
10. Szambien, J.N.L. Durand, p. 96.
September 1994 JAE 48/1 22
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
11. In 1902, almost a century later than
Durand, Julien Guadet made a distinction between
the elements ofarchitecture and the elements of composition.
Walls, roofs, and domes, for example, are elements
of architecture. Rooms, lobbies, and stairs are
elements of composition. Translated and quoted in
Reyner Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine
Age (New York: Praeger, 1960), p. 20.
12. Durand, Precis, vol. 1, p. 29. It does not
seem reasonable to conclude from his reference to
words and notes that Durand's theory is based on a
sophisticated linguistic model. What Durand tried to
express by means of this analogy to language and
music was the idea of composition in its most intuitive
form, that is, as the process by which complex
parts are created from simple ones.
13. The discussion regarding the division of
architecture into physical and conceptual realms has
a long tradition in French theory and is directly related
to the debate about the scientific nature of architecture.
Claude Perrault, in his Ordonnance des
cinq esp ces de colonnes selon la methode des Anciens,
published in 1683, wrote that "one must suppose
two kinds of beauty in architecture and know which
beauties are based on convincing reasons and which
depend only on prejudice .... Against the beauties I
call positive and convincing, I set those I call arbitrary."
For the English translation, see Claude
Perrault, Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns
after the Method of the Ancients, trans. Indra Kagis
McEwen (Santa Monica, CA: The Getty Center,
1993), pp. 50, 51. Perrault's distinction between
positive and arbitrary beauty conveyed a separation
between physical and abstract components in architecture.
At the turn of the eighteenth century, Andrd
Felibien, Michel de Fremin, and Abbe Cordemoy coincided
in considering architecture mainly as an art
de bdtir. Marc-Antoine Laugier also considered the
basic elements of architecture to belong to the physical
realm. In his Essai sur Iarchitecture, first published
in 1753, he writes that "the parts of an
architectural Order are the very components of the
building; they must therefore be employed in such a
way as not only to decorate a building but to constitute
it, whereby if a single element is removed, the
whole building will collapse." Translated and quoted
in Collins, Changing Ideals, pp. 200-201. Still, by
the end of the eighteenth century, there were voices
that rejected the idea of an architecture considered
mainly as the art of building. Among them was
Etienne-Louis Boullke, who had a direct influence on
Durand. He held the opinion that physical aspects
were secondary to conceptual ones. In his Essai sur
I'art (Paris: Hermann, 1968), p. 49, he writes:
"Qu'est-ce que I'architecture? La ddfinirai-je avec
Vitruve l'art de bdtir? Non. Ily a dans cette definition
une erreur grossire. Vitruve prend l'effet pour la cause.
Ilfaut concevoir pour effectuer. Nos premiers peres
n'ont bdti leurs cabanes qu'apres en avoir confu
limage. C'est cette production de lesprit, c'est cette
creation qui constitue I'architecture, que nous pouvons
en consequence, definir l'art de produire et de porter si
la perfection tout 6difice quelconque. L 'art de batir n 'est
donc qu 'un art secondaire, qu il nous parait convenable
de nommer la partie scientifique de l'architecture. "
14. Christian Norberg-Schulz, Intentions in
Architecture (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1963), pp.
133-140, has proposed a theory of architecture consisting
of elements and relations. Following Paul
Frankl, who had previously introduced the concepts
of "space-cells" (Raumzellen) and "mass-forms"
(K6rperformen), Norberg-Schulz proposes three
kind of elements: mass, space, and surface. Although
he considers these elements to be physical and measurable
entities, his systematization is more generic
and comprehensive than those based on the idea of
physical components and the like.
15. Durand, Precis, vol. 1, p. 1.
16. Durand's concept of composition had a
lasting effect on the education of architects. Already
in the twentieth century, Julien Guadet stated in his
Elements et Theories de lArchitecture that "to compose
is to make use of what is known (ce qu'on sait).
Composition has materials just as construction has,
and these materials are, precisely, the Elements of
Architecture." Translated and quoted in Banham,
Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (New
York: Praeger, 1960), p. 20.
17. There are plates in the Precis where
Durand shows how the ensembles can be produced
from the horizontal (in plan) and vertical (in elevation)
combination of the parties. However, these
pure combinatorial exercises do not necessarily result
in the creation of a building understood as a complete
unity, that is to say, as something more than
the mere combination of parts. In the plate of the
marche a suivre, on the other hand, Durand addresses
the description of a procedure whose goal is the creation
of a complete formal structure.
18. As Collins explains in Changing Ideals in
Modern Architecture, p. 226, at a certain point the
word composition could be applied equally in both architecture
and painting. Somehow, the association
between architecture and painting still persists in the
method of composition proposed by Durand. The
method, rather than being specifically architectural,
resembles the way a painter might work, starting
from a very rough scheme that is later refined.
19. Werner Szambien, "Durand and the
Continuity of Tradition," in Robin Middleton, ed.,
The Beaux Arts and Nineteenth Century French Architecture
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1982), p. 21,
shows the project for an Academy of Arts made in
1786 by Charles Percier, which Durand used in the
plate of the method of composition.
20. Giulio Carlo Argan, "On the Typology
of Architecture," Architectural Design 12 (1963):
564-565.
21. Werner Oechslin, "Premises for the Resumption
of the Discussion of Typology," Assemblage
1 (1986): 37-54. The substitution of one plate by
another is noted by Oechslin in this article. Oechslin
contends that Durand replaced one for the other to
make his ideas clearer. He also comments on the fact
that buildings are absent from the first plate, whereas
in the second, buildings and geometric figures are
shown together.
22. Durand does not use the word type in his
text. Instead he uses genre to refer to buildings with
different functions, private or public. It was
Quatremere de Quincy, a contemporary of Durand,
who introduced the concept of type in architecture
in an explicit way. For Quatremere's distinction between
type and model, see the article on "Type" in
the third volume of his Encyclopedie Methodique,
Paris, 1825. Argan's article builds upon Quatremere's
definition of type. After this article had been written,
Sylvia Lavin's book, Quatremere de Quincy and the
Invention ofa Modern Language ofArchitecture (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1992) came to my attention, specifically
her point that Durand never used the term
type. I have not been able to consult this text, but it
appears that we have independently come to the
same conclusion.
23. The split between subjectivity and objectivity
represents another of the permanent dilemmas
of architecture. This division is already implicit in
Vitruvius when he writes that the architect, "ought to
be both naturally gifted and amenable to instruction."
Vitruvius, The Ten Books ofArchitecture, trans. Morris
Hicky Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), p. 5.
24. Durand, Precis, vol. 2, p. 1.
25. The idea that in architecture, generic
principles exist as they do in the sciences has not yet
been confirmed either by Durand's work or by those
who later shared similar beliefs. As a matter of fact,
already in this century many opposing arguments
have been made. Edmund Husserl, Origin of Geometry:
An Introduction (New York: Nicolas Hays,
1978), p. 160, suggests that architecture cannot be
part of an "ideal objectivity" as sciences are: "This is,
we note, an "ideal objectivity." It is proper to a
23 Madrazo
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
whole class of spiritual products of the cultural
world, to which not only all scientific constructions
and the sciences themselves belong but also, for example,
the constructions of literature. Works of this
class do not, like tools (hammers, pliers) or like architectural
and other such products, have a repeatability
in many like exemplars. The Pythagorean
theorem, (indeed) all of geometry, exists only once,
no matter how often or even in what language it may
be expressed." Effectively, it would be difficult to
find in architecture the sort of concept that, like the
Pythagorean theorem in geometry, needs to be formalized
only once.
26. Alberto Perez-G6mez, Architecture and
the Crisis of Modern Science (Cambridge: MIT Press,
1983), p. 322, writes that "architectural theory during
the nineteenth century would be founded on the
belief that all the variables of the real world can be
reduced to the conceptual realm and the resultant of
any architectural problem is a direct "function" of
the combination of these variables."
27. The fact that the illustrations play a significant
role in both books, the Quattro Libri and the
Precis, is by no means secondary to the discussion
about the systematization of architectural knowledge.
Both architects, Durand and Palladio, were aware of
the importance that graphical expression of an idea
has in architecture. They excelled in presenting their
ideas graphically to the point that it is not an exaggeration
to argue that the influence of both books is
due more to their illustrations than to the texts
themselves. James Ackerman, in a short bibliographical
reference on the Quattro Libri, writes that there is
little abstract theory in Palladio's books and that
their extraordinary influence on so many generations
of architects is mostly due to the illustrations. See
Dora Wiebenson, ed., Architectural Theory and Practice
from Alberti to Ledoux (Chicago: Architectural
Publications, 1982).
28. The practical results of the application of
Durand's theories can be seen in the numerous designs
realized by the students of the lcole des Beaux
Arts. These works can be praised for their coherence
and consistency as much as they may be criticized for
the limited vision of architecture that they exhibit as
a whole. What Durand's method provided was a sort
of conceptual space within which endless variants
could be created. The limits of that space, however,
were not questioned. The very same coherence exhibited
by these works prevented them from addressing
architecture in its full complexity. The few built
projects, which can be considered the ultimate expression
of Durand's principles, are also purely syntactic
exercises, lacking soul and distinguished by an
endemic incapability to express anything beyond
themselves. For a compendium of these built works,
see Szambien, J.N.L. Durand, pp. 295-335.
29. The repeated attempts to make architecture
a scientific discipline suggest that what is actually
being attempted is an adjustment of architecture
to the predominant conception of science in a particular
historical period. This was the case in the
early sixties, when the so-called Design Methods
group attempted to create a science of design, based
on rational principles, which according to their theories
embodied not only architecture, but any humanmade
production. In the domain of architecture,
some architects in the seventies borrowed the idea of
syntactic structures from linguistics to attempt a formalization
of architectural knowledge. Behind all of
these attempts, ideas and concepts founded in the
emerging area of computing played their part. It is
precisely in the area of design and computing that
the quest for a systematization of architectural
knowledge has received major attention. However,
much work that has been developed in this area is
based on the dubious assumption that architecture
can be expressed in terms of geometry or mathematics,
both of which are more suitable for computer
implementation than architecture.
September 1994 JAE 48/1 24
This content downloaded from
147.251.174.214 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:41:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms