The Moral Face of Art, Part I
A. W. N. Pugin's Principles of Christian Architecture, Against Pagan Styles
Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812-1852) was an English architect, writer, and designer and a central name in the Gothic Revival movement, giving it the theoretical basis for substituting the preferred Neoclassical style in architecture by what he called Pointed, or simply Christian architecture in addition to his great concrete contributions to the architecture of England, designing and renovating many churches and palaces through the country, notably designing most of the detail of the Westminster Palace including the Elizabeth Tower.
But why Gothic? Being familiar with certain circles on the internet, I’ve seen an endless number of posts and discussions concerning the problems of Modern - that is, nearly every style that has developed since the decline of Art Déco or Art Nouveu depending on who you ask - architecture. It’s lifeless, rootless, plain, it disregards classical principles of design and a people or civilization’s tradition. While those are in large part true (although there are examples of modern designs that are distinctly modern but avoid one or more of the aforementioned flaws) it tends to lead people to almost fetishize classical forms. On the other hand, save for a few discussions on which “traditional” style is the best, these circles remain widely uncritical of individual buildings or general styles. When I first read Pugin’s remarks on St. Paul’s cathedral in London I found them scandalous. How could this magnificent piece of architecture be seen just as an “utter departure from Catholic architecture, and meagre imitations of Italian paganism”?
Well, the answer is there. The grandiosity of the columns piled on columns, the seemingly solid structure covered in classical window frames, the white stone, and the huge dome towering over the city of London is an impressive sight indeed, but it is a meagre imitation of Italian paganism. For Pugin, Classicists failed in producing beautiful architecture, but most importantly they failed in producing authentically Christian and English architecture.
Since I brought it up, let’s start with St. Paul’s to illustrate what I mean. From an outside view, one of the things that stands out is the apparent lack of buttresses. Now, this is strange, is it not? To sustain such a large structure with simple semicircle arches and no buttresses is a great feat of engineering! That is, if such was the case. In reality we don’t see the same structure one would see in Old St. Paul’s because they are hidden. A cross-section shows:
If one were to look at St. Paul's from above, said buttresses can be seen reaching out of the roof. Truth, as much as one tries to hide it, finds its way to appear.
In the same cathedral we have that massive dome (arguably too large) that is undeniably a marvel of engineering, but it too has its own deal of deception. “One of the great defects of St. Paul’s, London,” wrote Pugin, “is its fictitious dome. The dome that is seen is not the dome of the church, but a mere construction for effect.” The dome seen from inside is one structure, while the one seen from the outside is another, an “imposing show, constructed at a vast expense without any legitimate reason.”
Finally, the external appearance of the building is of what Pugin considered a pagan style. Unlike another church which will appear here later, Christopher Wren, the architect, did not depart completely from Christian principles: the church still had many of the essential aspects of a Christian temple, as a cruciform plan, with a nave, chancel, transepts, aisles, high altar, and chapels. However, the architectural forms used broke with the English and Christian tradition, preferring instead the ancient, pagan forms of Greece and Rome.
Now that I gave a general overview of what were Pugin’s criticisms to Classicism, we can see in more detail each of the problems with it.
Great Rules of Design
On the first paragraph of The True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture, Pugin claimed that
“The two great rules of design are these: 1st, that there should be no feature about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction, or propriety; 2nd, that all ornament should consist of enrichment of the essential construction of the building.”
The first might remind us of the modern idea that form follows function. The idea is not specifically modern but appears in different way along the western architectural tradition. Vitruvius had utilitas as one of the pillars for good design. Forts, churches, palaces, markets, in the large part of cases tended to be built in a way appropriate so they could fulfill their functions. An example of this is the Gothic church Pugin wrote so much about. Centuries of development of the Roman Basilica led to the perfecting of its forms, and through innovation, Western European Christians have adapted it to fit more perfectly its role. Every element in the building had a role it fulfilled. Now, a large barn with an altar on its East side could still serve as a church as it provides space and shelter for the congregation, and an altar for the sacrament, so anything else would be unnecessary, right? While technically it’s enough, it is not a proper space for Christian worship. High, arched ceiling, a cruciform plan, large windows with holy images, wide spaces, a chancel for the choir, pointed pinnacles reaching to heaven and more all make the building a physical manifestation of its identity. Likewise, a royal palace does not need much ornament or pomp nor does a house of parliament need more than just a room or two for meetings, but their dignity as houses of the monarchy and civil government demand proper ornament.
All of this is to say that a building should stay true to what it is. A common house should not pretend to be a palace or vice-versa. In the same way, a private chapel should not pretend to be a cathedral, no house should pretend to be a church, and most importantly no church should pretend to be a pagan temple.
Considering construction, Pugin points out that Greek temples were originally wooden, and that a building consisting of columns of trunks supporting a ceiling frame were the most convenient to build. But with the development of masonry and engineering, the invention of different forms of arches, buttresses, etc., the ancient model became obsolete. To Pugin, Greco-Roman persistence in these forms even when building with stone was “a monstrous absurdity.” The use of half-columns in the place of buttresses also made no sense, as they are less efficient. The buttress is made specifically for reinforcing a wall, and the column for holding a ceiling. A half-column on a wall, then, is a buttress both pretending to be something it is not and doing its job less efficiently. Being essential parts, and being seen as undesirable by classicists, they still tend to exist, but be hidden, as in the example of St. Paul’s a few paragraphs ago. The extensive use of stucco on brick and wood was also criticized by him, as a way to build over the true building instead of fixing the building itself, which, to him, was a reflection of the society of his Georgian England. This way, classic architects add unnecessary structures, and conceal the essential ones, both going against the principles laid by Pugin and missing the opportunity of beautifying the buttresses out of a simple disdain for medieval forms. It makes little sense, then, to use these forms when we have the option to build with more efficient, lighter, and more beautiful stone arches and buttresses.
Except, of course, for the desire to use them for the sake of a certain love for the Roman past and disdain for the Christian one, which leads us to the next point.
Christian Architecture
The criticism of Classicism is an ever-present theme in all his works. Since his first major work, Contrasts, we can find an exposition of Pugin’s thought in the matter. All of the ancient cultures built with deeply symbolic forms and ornament which expressed in themselves the beliefs of the nation that built them. “The belief and manners of all people are embodied in the edifices they raised.” Why is it, then, that Christians would refrain from doing so too? It is by no lack of a style that expresses the faith and character of a people, as Christians East and West for more than a thousand years adapted and invented artistic forms and ornaments that were characteristically Christian.
Pointed or Christian Architecture has far higher claims on our admiration than mere beauty or antiquity; the former may be regarded as a matter of opinion, — the latter, in the abstract, is no proof of excellence, but in it alone we find the faith of Christianity embodied, and its practices illustrated.
The Crucifixion, Trinity, and Resurrection of the Dead are all represented in the structure of the Gothic church. It is the poor man’s Bible, informing the faithful through its ornamental iconography and essential structure. A temple of Jupiter, on the other hand, does not teach much about God or proclaim His Glory. Paraphrasing the Count of Montalembert, quoted by Pugin, the ancient pagans at least were consistent by teaching their error, but the revival of these errors by Christians is contrary to reason, trying to preach the truth with false forms.
The Madeleine in Paris is an extreme example of this. In all but the object of its portico relief, it appears to the pedestrian as a pagan temple. Without examining the relief art, one would not suspect that the locals worship Christ in that building. The building relies entirely internally and externally on its ornamental iconography to portray itself as a Christian temple.
In addition to its ambiguous identity, it doesn’t serve its purpose as well as the churches of old. It has hardly any natural light (as in the Greek religion, only priests would enter the temples for sacrifice, making lighting unimportant) and it has no place for bells, to name a few. It is unfit for its purpose; all it says about the people who built it is their disordered affection for pagan forms, and all it teaches the people is of the glories of the Greek past.
Man imitates God as creator. Sacred art traditionally has the element of worship and veneration: the creativity of the architect and the labor of the mason glorified God by using His gifts to build great things in His honor. To build a church beautiful to the eyes of men but full of falsehoods is execrable, according to Pugin, referring to adding artifices to make simple churches more beautiful, but the principle is certainly appliable to this situation too.
In his Apology for the Revival of Christian Architecture in England, the architect pointed out the irony that often the Classic architects aren’t as concerned with classical principles as much as Gothic architects, instead mashing forms together “constantly producing the greatest anomalies” while presenting these as great monuments. “Vitruvius would spew if he beheld the works of those who glory in calling him master.” He used as an example the Bank of England building in London, which is worth reading, but an explanation of it would be irrelevant to my discussion here.
By introducing pagan symbols, said Pugin, the Classicists “seduced the weak-minded, and gained thousands who would have revolted at the professional mutilation of ecclesiastical architecture to aid its destruction.” Art teaches. It gives information, and beautiful art sways our passions to love and hate different things. To exalt paganism in detriment of Christianity teaches the people to despise their own religion, even if the pagan-styled edifices are technically Christian, creating a “Babel of confusion”. In a feedback loop, then, the next generations will bear even worse fruits, as their sensibilities have been “unchristianized.” Pugin blamed the earliest loss of Catholic fervor in life and art for both Protestantism and the further paganization of art.
To Pugin, the pagan temples of old were “perfect expressions of imperfect systems” that have been superseded by the Christian religion, making their forms beautiful indeed, but not fit for a perfect expression for a perfect system. The revived Classical style, then, is immoral for lacking truth and proper order in its physical being, for deceiving the people, for its irreligiosity, for the disordered affections behind their conception, the ones they elicit, their extraordinary cost, and other reasons Pugin scattered around his works. Other buildings more traditional ones in style, too, are not free from charges, as they sometimes deviate from the right principles of propriety and of ornament, making them seem to be something other than what they are.
Next
On the next, shorter post, I will continue to explore some of Pugin’s ideas, but focusing more on the issues of national style, and the problems that arose with Protestantism especially in England.
All of A. W. N. Pugin’s major works can be found on the Internet Archive.