THE MECHANICAL BODY VERSUS THE DIVINE BODY: THE RISE OF MODERN DESIGN THEORY¹

"Paris, December 31st, 1671. The Royal Academy of the King is established by Monseigneur Colbert, in one of the chambers of the Louvre. ...Monsieur Blondel, professor of mathematics and architecture opens the session with a lecture on the excellence of architecture. ..." The program of the academy was as follows: "Tuesday and Friday, Blondel gave a public lecture from two to four in the afternoon. During the first hour he dictated his lessons and during the second, he explained the elements of Euclid and other knowledge necessary for architects. Every Thursday there were special meetings ...to discuss the art and the rules of architecture" and to open, once more Blondel spoke on "what good taste is ...which. ..marks the excellence of the works of architecture." The subject stayed on in the discussions for more than one session. There was some disagreement as to whether that which caused buildings to be beautiful was "positive" or "arbitrary ."²

It is a common claim today that design, before the beginning of "modern" architecture – believed by many to be synonymous with the foundation of the Bauhaus – was intuitive, spontaneous and deprived of conscious ordering. This is a fabrication that was spread throughout the whole profession of architecture in order to promote the "modernist" movement and, later on, the so-called new methodologies in the 60's.³ Historical evidence, however, proves, on the contrary, that the decision making process was every bit as conscious and ordered a process as it is today and that contemporary methods are nothing but the outcome of fundamental movements of the 17th century.

The Royal Academy of Architecture, as well as the other royal academies of the period, was founded on the premise that a new set of norms, opposed to the archaic ones, was needed: norms for the fabrication of objects ranging from poems to bridges, from porticoes to astronomical instruments and from bastions to tapestries.⁴ These were "rules" to be sought after in the objective observation of nature, and not, as they had been in the past, imposed by the archaic forms of authority. It was the task of the academicians to find a coherent, systematic, positive frame of reference to replace the archaic, sacred, scholastic model.

Colbert, doubtless the most powerful man of the State after Louis XIVth, not only single-handedly founded, and ultimately administered, most of the academies, but even officiated upon several occasions during the sessions and was asked to fill the role of arbitrator concerning theoretical questions debated by the academicians. But it was not out of sheer fascination for theoretical questions that Colbert took the matters of the academies so greatly to heart.⁵ For him, the academies were the partial means to an end: that of correcting the balance of payments within the European economy in favor of France. With this goal in mind, Colbert set himself the task of revolutionizing the process of production, and ultimately the products themselves. This was possible, according to his plan, only through the imposition of a tight rational control on all potential internationally dominant sectors of production. And architecture, far from being an exception to this rule, was perceived as one of the model sectors to be reorganized.⁶

Thus, within this profound economic reorganization, the role of the state was central in spurring the necessary institutional changes. Every feature of the reorganization, whether ergonomical, educational, methodological, technological or conceptual was seen by Colbert as part of an interrelated whole, each contributing to the transformation of architecture from an under-productive activity, based on the traditional archaic institution of the guilds, into a new rationally controllable sector.

The new demand for the rationalization of architecture called not only for the dissolution of one group of individuals and the implantation of a new one in the form of the Royal Academy; it also called for the replacement of an archaic type of task allocation, of education, of methods and of concepts. From a guild type organization, which had kept the division of labor at a minimum, architectural production became relatively compartmentalized and specialized, separating out the task of the non-skilled and skilled worker, that of the designer and that of the laborer. As the division of labor changed, so did the training of the architect. Within the guild system, the manual and the theoretical spheres of architecture were fused into one. The trade of every guildsman rested on his acquisition of techniques as well as on the principles that linked architecture to the cosmological order of the world. It had not been possible to conceive one without the other. This situation, and its resulting effects in education, was to undergo a radical transformation with the inception of the Royal Academy.

Turning its back on the archaic form of training, the Academy offered a form of education which was theoretical. No training for manual work was included in its courses. The teaching contained lectures on abstract topics, principles of euclidean rationality and the empirical procedures advocated by Galilean mechanics. With the exclusion of manual, practical skills, architectural education was to be limited to the learning of principles, plans, examples and application, disassociating the abstract field of pure design from that of labor. At the same time the laborer was exempted from any theoretical activities. What has been said primarily with regard to the professional, educational and methodological development of the French Royal Academy of Architecture can be generalized as a broader phenomenon, occuring throughout all the states of Europe. Although there might not have existed academies or exact equivalents of the "diplome", it is a fact that in the countries of the so-called advancing bourgeois society, guilds were shut down, archaic methods of design shunned, "academic" courses adopted as the new vehicle for education and anew, rational, empirical methodology and conceptual framework developed and put into practice.

The conceptual aspect of the transformation that affected architecture during the period under study was no less important than those already presented: whereas the archaic conceptual framework had referred to a set of design decisions warranted by divine law, the modern one was to be warranted by the need to maximize utility and to minimize cost. Moreover, in the archaic framework, the validity of warrants and decisions had been founded on simple statements of classification while in the modern one, it was to become founded on statements of causality backed by empirical data.

A conceptual framework is a structure of argumentation which brings together de- sign actions and purposes, facts and directives, natural and social constraints and technological and cultural norms. It validates the adoption or the rejection of design actions and legitimizes norms? A conceptual framework sets up the limits within which there is common ground for argumentation, in this case architectural argumentation, to take place meaningfully. At- tempts to create a dialogue between two argumentative systems belonging to different conceptual frameworks is bound to result in incongruity.

Epiphoric objects impose in a non-explicit manner the limits of the conceptual framework within which the design argumentation can take place meaningfully: They are everyday objects which, by entering into the argumentation, present in a "stenographic" way the framework in use. Thus the complex of logical rules, epistemological and deontic statements as well as simple data are all condensed in simple form.

By accepting an epiphoric object in an argumentation, one accepts a conceptual framework in its entirety, which means not only an idea of the work as it is, but also as it can be and should be. To replace an epiphoric object is to replace the above elements. An epiphoric object, in this case, legitimizes the change by implying that it is permitted, or obligatory, to accept the new framework in use as the use of the concrete object, from which the epiphoric object is taken, and which has already been accepted. In other words, an epiphoric object claims that a given framework is a fait accompli.

Although the framework of archaic design was carried by several epiphoric objects, the "monochord" being one of the more not- able ones;⁸ the most frequently used and widely spread one was that of the human body. References to the human body relate simultaneously to all levels of the frame- work of archaic design. The building is a human body: to accept such a concept is to commit oneself to the overall framework of archaic methodology, i.e. sacred harmony as an ultimate warrant, a quasi-deductive logic of inference, a classificatory foundation for the justification of design decisions and authority backings to validate them, and a concentration of the repertory of design decisions around proportion, size and shape.

Accordingly, the transformation which re- places the framework of archaic design changes not only norms and design decisions, but also kinds of foundation and backing. This substitution was greatly aided by the introduction of the body of the machine as an epiphore in the design argumentation. The new framework has two variants: one is the body of the building as a machine, the other is the bodies of the users of the building as machines.

The preoccupation with number and proportion is replaced by the concern for exact size, shape and "mass." These are considered as being the cause or the instrumental conditions for the fulfillment of given norms rather than simply being classified in accordance with norms. For example, a certain proportion is categorized as harmonious in the archaic framework. In the modern one, it becomes the cause of a certain sensation of pleasure. In addition, in order to back causal or conditional statements, modern methodology replaces claims of authority with empirical verification.

It was Colbert's aim to have the same rigor which gave the optimal dimensions to a bridge applied to the proportions of the colonnade of a facade. He saw it as the task of the Academy of Architecture, as well as that of the Academy of Science, to discover the laws of nature related to design, to grant patents, to evaluate various projects "objectively", to consult reliably and to propose "solutions". This, to a certain degree, was achieved: The commitment to the building as a machine accelerates the development of a design methodology which, after a systematic collection of empirical and a long series of. experiments, succeeded in establishing a causal relationship between architectural means and desired utilitarian effects. These in turn lead to the calculation of optimal dimensions of construction elements and of the optimal use of materials. As a result, great potentials for economization, through the minimization of cost, were created.

On the other hand, to consider the building as a container of human bodies and the human body itself as a machine reacting to external forces, is to take another direction from the one described above. The design object is seen to affect the body-psyche complex by causing it to have a sensation, in much the same way that an external force affects a construction by making it collapse or stand. The building can be perceived as a poem or as a picture. Whatever the cause, it is a composition artificially assembled that causes effects in man. According to the machine framework, shapes, shadows, and tones are like vectors entering into a system, generating in the body-psyche complex reactions either of pleasure or of pain. The "whole development of the moral being" is often considered to be the result of "external objects," an idea adopted by Condillac in his development of the new discipline of psychology.⁹

In architecture, however, it was not possible to measure or to empirically establish the emotional or aesthetic effects of a building, at least in the same way that an engineer managed to establish the breaking point of a rod when a certain force was applied to it. Thus, no design directives were scientifically established on the basis of exact psychological norms. But the physiological effects of space, contrary to the psychological ones, seemed to be more tangible and measurable, Consequently, it was those that had an effect on the design of buildings.¹⁰

What we see developing then is a split: on the one hand, we have the designer- engineer whose methodological argumentation led directly to design decisions, and on the other, the artist-:architect whose theorizing on the effects of form on the human psyche was never founded nor backed empirically. Moreover, any application of the latter, until the end of the 18th century, was limited to the level of general intention. Such was the case, for instance, with the work of Camus de Mezieres and of Boullée.

Thus, despite the initial vision of Colbert for the unification of architecture, with the machine as an epiphore, by the end of the

17th century the approach to design takes two irreconcilable directions: design developed as a science, where emphasis is placed on the minimization of cost in the production or use of the design object, and design developed as an art, where the focus is on the maximization of pleasure derived from the design object. The split is carried across from theory to institutions. The schools of engineering emerge as independent institutions around 1740. Once more France takes a leading part and opens the schools of the Ponts et Chaussées, taking away from the Academy courses such as bridge building and assigning them to the new school. A series of military schools is also founded where engineering is the field which is taught and expanded. Closer to the "natural sciences," institutions such as the Academy of Science and the Jardin du Roi are also spurred.

The approach to architecture as an art will be served, on the other hand, by the new Ecole des Beaux-Arts soon after the French revolution, whose organization and pedagogy will serve as prototypes for the rest of Europe.

The first buildings conceived as machines were those which were compared to enlarged instruments. "Even the building is an instrument. .." says the astronomer Cassini in 1710, referring to his early ideas for the observatory of Paris. Similarly, Vauban conceived of fortifications as extensions and expansions of the cannon. Going even further than Cassini in this utilitarian perception, he takes into account aspects of time distances combined with geometry in the search for the maximization of defense and the minimization of cost. Vauban's plan was to minimize, not dimensions, but the number of people involved in the defense. Thus, in addition to the cannon, the human body as a machine is incorporated into the system.¹³

The most complex applications of this type of design come from the doctors and administrators in the second half of the 18th century, when a vast project to redesign hospitals, lazarettoes, prisons and asylums was undertaken throughout Europe. It is in these projects that the building comes to be seen in terms of an air machine. A series of observations and experiments had established the medical hypothesis that the cause of disease was associated with impure air, humidity and currents. And, as in the case of fortifications, aspects of economy of circulation and servicing, and costs of space occupancy are included. This brings to the search for minimal standards preoccupations with body occupancy as it moves, rests, breathes, works, eats, defecates. ..A hospital room is truly a machine for treating patients." This statement, written in 1787, by Le Roy reflects the general approach of the tlmes.¹⁴ Such projects were successful in generating the considerable savings and profits that Colbert had envisaged in his project for architectural reform.

But profit was not only to be had through the design of engineers and the regimentation of building plans. The objects of fantasy, the facades of mirage, the spaces of illusion and the cascades of forms created by the artist-architect occupied an equally important place in the market. That the body-psyche complex as a machine on which certain sensations could be created by the design object was not a hypothesis that was founded, but, nevertheless, its adoption allowed the designer to proceed in developing new patterns and new design products freely. This hypothesis meant that new forms were conceivable, possible and permissible.

The liquidation of the guilds, as well as the simultaneous abandonment of the conceptual framework of the sacred human body offered the freedom necessary for both engineers and artists in the architectural profession. The founding of the Royal Academy was instrumental in creating the structure that made this change feasible, but without the creation of a constellation of new institutions such as the Corps des Ingenieurs, the Academie Royale des Sciences, the new military schools, and much later, in republican France the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, modern architecture would not be as we know it today.

Characteristic of Colbert's technique was that in carrying through the necessary changes in the conceptual framework and the professional practice he avoided the pre-existing channels. He preferred, rather, to establish new, parallel institutions. This practice was also used by his successors, as well as by other major policy makers in 18th century Europe. Thus, while some institutions faced a direct attack, such as the guilds, the universities were left behind to stagnate for a period of one hundred and fifty years.¹⁵

But regardless of the novelty and openness of a new institution, if one clings to older conceptual frameworks, there is no deep change. It is only when the old frameworks are discarded and new ones put into place that one can envisage new possible and permissible forms of action.

From this brief description, it is evident that an archaic conceptual system is no less coherent, nor less abstract than the modern one. Neither is it more spontaneous, more variant or more concrete. These characteristics in the past have tended to imply the superiority of one system over another, their degree of intellectual advancement. But conceptual frameworks can be compared only in terms of the interests of the society within which they were generated. A shift of human interests, if not of society as a whole, at least of the dominant part of society, requires a shift in conceptual frameworks. This is precisely what occurred when the modern framework of design replaced the previously dominant archaic one.

1 This short article has been based on research done on the conceptual systems of architecture in France between 1650and 1800 under the sponsorship of the French Ministry of Culture (Direction de l'Architecture) by M Freeman, L Lefaivre, 0 Salama, B Berwick, and E de Cointet under the direction of A Tzonis. The study of the overall period as it relates to the production of architecture is forthcoming in book form.

Our notion of the framework appears to be to a great extent similar to Kuhn's paradigm, to Foucault'j episteme and to Korner's categorical frameworks. As much as we feel indebted to these authors, we feel that our notion of frame- work owes more to M Minsky's frames, which refer to a taxinomy of conceptual systems that incorporate all deontic as well as epistemological and alethic aspects. For a more detailed and technical discussion of the above, see: Tzonis, A et al. (1975) 1650-1800, Les systemes conceptuels de I'architecture.

2 Lemonnier, H ( ed 1911) Proces verbaux de l' Academie Royale d' Architecture, 1671-1793.

3 Alexander, C (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form.

4 Typical of these efforts is the: Rapport de I' Academie Royale d' Architecture sur la provenance et la qualite des pierres ... demande en l'annee 1678 par Colbert. Hahn, R (1971) The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution; The Paris Academy of Science, 1666-1803.

5 Colbert,] B (ed 1861-1882) Lettres, instructions et memoires. Colbert,] B (1693) Testament politique.

6 Soriano, M (1973) Le Dossier Charles Perrault.

7 Tzonis, A et al. (197.5) op cit.

80uvrard, R (1679) L'Architectureharmonique.

9 Gusdorf, G ( 1973) L' A venement des sciences humaines... . Madame de Stael (1810) De I'Allemagne.

10 lt was only C Perrault during this period who denied clearly the possibility of ever identifying 'positive" norms of beauty. Taste, he felt, was "arbitrary" i e dependent on social conditions rather than on nature.

11 Boullee, E L Architecture-essai sur I' art. Camus de Mezleres (1780) Le Genie de I'architecture.

12 Taton, R, ed. (1964) Enseignement et diffusion des sciences en France au 18e siecle. ...

13 For a more detailed analysis see Tzonis et al. (197.5)opcit.

14Le Roy,] B (1787) Precis d'unouvrage sur les hopitaux. Barret-Kriegel, B, Beguin, F, Fortier, B, Friedman, D, et Montchablon, A, sous la direction de B Fortier (197.5) La politiquede I'espace parisien (a la fin de I'Ancien Regime).

15 Gusdorf, G (1973) op cit, P 1.5.5 "L'Etatet I'enseignement."

Alexander Tzonis is on the faculty of architecture at Harvard. Liane Lefaivre is doing research there. They have searched for social reasons behind the form of earlier architecture and architectural education. By employing linguistics as a principal tool in the analysis of buildings, they have combined history, theory and design.

Illustration is of Interior of Town by Etienne- Louis Boullée (1728-1799) taken from Etienne- Louis Boullee (1728-1799) Afts et Metiers Graphiques 18, rue Seguier, Paris.