On Architecture as a Spatial Art

a bstr act I present and evaluate various criticisms against the view that architecture and architectural value are to be understood solely in terms of internal space. I conclude that the architectural value of a building should not be limited to its internal spatial effects because the value of other elements, such as (non­spatial) function, materials, ornamentation, and so on cannot all be reduced to spatial values. k ey wor ds Architecture, Space, Ornament, Roger Scruton, Bruno Zevi, Aesthetic Value

Taken literally, this definition seems false and not interesting.The mere experience of space is clearly not sufficient for something to be a work of architecture.Standing in an open field or climbing a mountain involves an experience of space, but open fields and mountains are not works of architecture.The main problem of D1 is that it does not seem to account for the existence of basic architectural elements: walls, roofs and so on.D1 can be qualified and improved: (D2) Something is an architectural work of art if, and only if, the content of an appropriate experience of it, as what it is, necessarily includes an experience of enclosed space.
According to this definition, the key concept for a definition of architecture is not space as such, but rather enclosed space. 4However, D2 does not seem to capture other essential elements of what we appreciate in buildings qua works of architecture.More specifically, as Scruton claims regarding a similar definition, it does not take into account such important features as effects of light and shade, ornament, function, texture, and mouldings.These elements can hardly be excluded from the appreciation of a building; hence, they need to be accommodated in a definition of architecture. 5evi defined architecture in terms of a conception of space that also includes an account of these other elements.He distinguished two kinds of space: the internal and the external (or urban) space.The former is completely determined by the building itself, while the latter is determined by a particular building and its surroundings. 6According to him, only the form er is relevant to a judgement of architectural success.In his clarification of the concept of space, Zevi relied on Sigfried Giedion's interpretation of the history of architecture as a succession of different spatial conceptions. 7Without going into unnecessary detail, Giedion and Zevi argued, among other things, that Cubism is a crucial point in the development of the conception of space in art.According to them, Cubism breaks with traditional perspective in the sense that, for example, Picasso and Braque represent objects from several perspectives at once, instead of from a simple privileged point of view, in contrast to what had been done before them. 8Giedion also claimed that the Cubist representation of objects, characterized by the simultaneous presence of several points of view, somehow introduced into the consciousness of modern man something that was suggested in the emerging scientific discoveries of Albert Einstein: simultaneity. 9Leaving aside fanciful connections between Cubism and the Theory of Relativity, what is meant here is simply that the so-called dimension of space cannot be fully appreciated without taking into account a temporal element, that is, the time required to explore the internal space of the building.In other terms, in order to appreciate the internal space of a building, we need time to move inside it. 10This temporal aspect of the perception of space implies a multiplicity of different spatial experiences generated by the same building: the possible paths taken by different observers to explore, for example, a medieval church can always be different from each other.Summing up, Zevi suggested that the conception of space that is relevant to architecture is of an internal space that requires movement (and direct acquaintance) to be perceived and appreciated.
In addition to having offered a clarification of the notion of space, Zevi showed himself to be aware of the difficulties faced by D1 and D2.For instance, against D1, he denied that the spatial value of a building is its sole value and acknowledged that a work of architecture can be evaluated from different perspectives.However, he also claimed that, if we want to value a building from an architectural point of view, the spatial aspect is to be taken as a frame of reference against which other elements can be understood.In other words, we should always refer to the spatial value when we evaluate a building even from different points of view, if we want to understand its architectural value. 11More specifically, Zevi claimed that, even though details, ornament, function, and so on are criteria of evaluation, they cannot be considered as independent from their spatial value: their architectural value is always to be understood in terms of the spatial value they have in the context of the building.For example, the ornamentation (and other non-spatial features) should be considered as relevant to the architectural value of a building to the extent that it provides a better clarification or experience of its spatial effect.Similarly, the architectural value of other kinds of detail should be understood in terms of the role they play in determining the spatial effect of the composition.What is proper and central in an architectural work of art is a meaningful creation of space through limitations, and other features should be understood, if relevant to an architectural evaluation, as details that influence the spatial value of the composition.
In light of the foregoing, we may present the following definition of architecture: (DZ) Something is an architectural work of art if, and only if, the content of an appropriate experience of it, as what it is, necessarily includes an experience of internal space (in the defined sense), and its other elements (ornamentation, lighting, materials, and so on) promote the spatial effect via a process of meaningful limitations. 12rchitectural success (or beauty) is to be seen in terms of how the internal space affects us: 'Beautiful architecture would then be architecture in which the internal space attracts us, elevates us and dominates us spiritually.No work lacking internal space can be considered architecture.' 13An architectural judgement, that is, a judgement on a building as a work of architecture, is fundamentally a judgement about its internal space (as previously defined). 14The overall value of a building is not to be reduced to its spatial value; however, the architectural value of a building must be assessed in relation to its spatial value. 15

Objections
According to DZ, the details of a building have an architectural interest to the extent that they emphasize or clarify spatial elements.For instance, an internal cornice in St Peter's has architectural value because 'it brings the space of the wall to an effective conclusion, and defines thereby the hidden geometry of the roof cavity'. 16The above elaboration of Zevi's remarks on architecture in terms of space succeeds if it shows that each detail of an architectural composition can be seen as having a bearing on the internal space of the building.In this section, I will first introduce, elaborate and evaluate Scruton's objections to this account and then advance other criticisms.Scruton's first objection to Zevi's account is based on the nature of the builder's material.Scruton claims that certain works of architecture would lose their architectural significance if they had been built using materials other than those from which they were actually constructed.For example, the colonnades at St. Spirito in Florence would lose architectural significance if they had been built in wood or granite, instead of pietra serena (grey sandstone or serene stone).The point is that the materials from which an architectural work is constructed influences the value, experience, and judgement of it qua work of architecture and this influence cannot be thought of as being merely a function of the spatial effect that different materials have on the perceiver.Suppose that the spatial effect of the colonnades at St. Spirito would be unaffected by the substitution of its colonnades in pietra serena with a similar material.According to Scruton, the resulting architectural experience would be deprived of the aesthetic pleasure derived from the beauty of the original material; hence, the particular technical choice of a specific material should be considered as aesthetically relevant.
We may also add that, in virtue of our knowledge of the particular significance that pietra serena has in the history of architecture in Tuscany, the material from which the colonnades of St. Spirito were constructed is an element of architectural interest because awareness of its significance affects and possibly enhances the architectural experience of the work.This enhancement cannot be understood in purely spatial terms and has a clear aesthetic and artistic relevance.Therefore, the material is significant for the architectural value of a work and this value is not prima facie related to space.This objection, which was not advanced by Scruton, requires other premises.For instance, it presupposes a notion of architectural experience and appreciation (or, more generally, of aesthetic experience and appreciation) according to which knowledge of relevant background features of a work of art influences its related experience and appreciation. 17his view is accepted by many contemporary philosophers of art and does not constitute a prima facie reason to resist the argument.The foregoing reasoning is also orthogonal to the contemporary dialectic on the Acquaintance Principle (AP) for aesthetic judgements. 18Roughly speaking, the AP implies that aesthetic knowledge has to be acquired through an adequately specified relation of acquaintance between the perceiver and the object.In the previous argument, it is not necessary to maintain that our knowledge of the material in question is an element that has a direct bearing on the experience of the work in order for that material to be judged as aesthetically valuable.For example, if pressed on this point, we can adopt an anti-empiricist view of the value of architecture and argue that non-experiential features of a work are also relevant for its evaluation. 19In our case, we can say that the technical achievements of an architect in constructing a building are themselves an architectural value.My point is that the (non-spatial) importance of the material for the architectural value of a building can be supported either (1) by assuming that our knowledge of the significance of the material influences our aesthetic experience and that aesthetic judgments should be based on an adequately qualified acquaintance with the object of experience or (2) by adopting an anti-empiricist view of the value of architecture.According to this latter position, the significance of the material does not have to be relevant for the experience of the work in order to be considered as valuable.
Zevi may reply that the objection presupposes that the architectural value of a building is influenced by considerations related to the material employed and that this presupposition has not received sufficient justification.However, it seems highly plausible that the choice of different materials by the architect (or the engineers) affects our architectural experience and judgements of value on buildings (whether directly perceived or not) and that this is not related only to its spatial effects.In support of this view, it must be remembered that architecture is influenced greatly by the evolution of technology, and that one way of appreciating a building as a work of art is to evaluate the way in which certain technological solutions have been applied to practical and aesthetic problems.Besides, knowledge of materials and their use is considered an important skill that is necessary for the formation of architects.For example, the ability and skill displayed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in choosing and combining the materials for the construction of the Seagram Building is widely considered an architectural merit. 20nother objection raised by Scruton to the possibility of reducing architectural experience to spatial experience is based on the distinction between carved and modelled form.Scruton suggests that Leon Battista Alberti's Tempio Malatestiano in Rimini is beautiful from an architectural point of view, not only because of the rhythm of the arcade, but also in virtue of 'the quality of workmanship which can be seen in its finely sculpted lines'. 21If Agostino di Duccio's and Matteo de' Pasti's fine decorations were moulded into concrete, they would lose much of their capacity to elicit emotive responses and, as a result, our experience of the building would change.Zevi can reply to this objection by saying that these details, along with the gargoyles that adorn the Notre Dame de Paris cathedral or the sculptures of mythical tiger-headed fish on the Himeji Castle (姫路城), are certainly to be taken as artistically valuable, but they are not part of the architectural value of the buildings in which they are located.In particular, they may increase the overall artistic value of the building in virtue of their inner qualities as sculptures, but they are not to be considered as architectural elements.However, Zevi's observation presupposes the definition of the essence of architecture which is in question.In particular, Zevi's remarks simply remind us that architecture deals essentially with internal space and that all those other features that do not play a role in determining spatial effect may increase the artistic value of a building but not its architectural merits.
To convince a spatial theorist of architecture that her theory is not persuasive regarding the lack of architectural merit of decorative elements, we may appeal to a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic ornamentation.Intuitively, there seems to be a distinction between at least two kinds of ornamentation in works of architecture.While we think that some of the decorative elements inside a building are relevant or important to its appreciation, we do not think that all are.For in-stance, we do not think that the Uffizi Gallery in Florence is architecturally more valuable in virtue of the masterpieces that hang on its walls.Botticelli's La Primavera or Titian's Venus of Urbino are extrinsic decorations of the internal space of the Uffizi.In contrast, the cortile (internal courtyard) of the building is articulated through a Doric order that some architectural historians, such as Giedion, judge to result in a 'masterpiece of perspective in depth'. 22Similarly, the statues that fill the niches in the piers contribute to the creation of the atmosphere that surrounds the gallery.Removing these statues would certainly change one's architectural experience of the building.These details, in contrast to the paintings hanging on the walls, are better seen as elements that are intrinsic to the architectural composition. 23It may be thus argued that, if we adopt DZ, we cannot formulate a proper distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic ornamentation because, on the view expressed by DZ, every sculptural detail is external and thus not an architectural element (unless it provides a spatial effect).If this is the case, then, in adopting DZ, we lose the theoretical possibility of describing a series of interesting architectural features, a possibility that seems to clarify our understanding of certain buildings.
Scruton also advances an objection to the spatial idiom in architectural criticism: he claims that the concept of space can be eliminated from most critical writings without substantially modifying their content. 24cruton rewrites two passages of Paul Frankl's Principles of Architectural History in such a way that the notion of space is eliminated without loss of content. 25However, Scruton does not provide a systematic way of replacing the notion of space.In some cases, such a demand may be too severe.However, in this case it seems fair, given the extensive use of the notion of space in recent architectural criticism.Nevertheless, even if all spatial idioms can be replaced by text that does not refer to space, it seems too strong to demand that they should be so replaced.After all, even if not fundamental or essential, descriptions in terms of spatial effects are important for the understanding of the role of certain details. 26 DZ, with its related cluster of aesthetic concepts, does not adequately take into account other aspects that are usually taken as being essential to architecture as an art.One of them is the notion of a function that is independent of spatial considerations. 27A building that fails to operate under certain functional constraints, for example a house in which it is impossible to live, is an architectural failure. 28This suggestion is widely shared by many other architectural theorists and philosophers, even by those who do not take functional constraints as the sole criterion by which to evaluate a building from an architectural point of view.In addition, functional constraints are usually taken as being characterising elements of architecture, because they are generally considered crucial for distinguishing architecture from, for example, sculpture.Function is an essential element but not exclusive or unique: architectural success and value cannot be understood as merely a matter of satisfying a function.Given the foregoing, we may wonder whether functional aspects that are not restricted to space can be somehow vindicated in DZ by reducing them to spatial effects.Is it plausible to maintain that all functional constraints should be seen in terms of their spatial effects?I think not; in fact, the opposite view is true for a great part of the built environment: frequently we can understand the spatial effects of a building in virtue of our knowledge of its function, but not the other way round.For instance, we can make sense of the spatial arrangement of a church and the emphasis that is usually put on the position of the altar in virtue of the function of churches as places in which a ceremony is performed.This ceremony (a non-spatial function) requires that the attention of the worshippers converges on a specific point.A spatial effect that invites or suggests movement towards the altar is better understood in virtue of its (non-spatial) function, not the other way round.If this is the case, the primacy of space for architectural understanding is, again, seriously threatened. 29nother objection to DZ is that the related notion of architectural success cannot be evaluated solely in terms of internal space.Buildings that do not show any understanding of the environment in which they are built are more likely to be considered architectural failures (and conversely, showing an understanding of the surrounding environment is generally considered a good-making feature of a building).This does not mean that buildings must always harmonize with what surrounds them; certain buildings have been built in certain areas precisely with the aim of creating a contrast with a specific context.Think of buildings such as the modern complex of Langham Place in Mong Kok, Hong Kong.Langham Place was built in an area surrounded with old edifices of dubious aesthetic value with the precise aim of creating a contrast with the built environment and possibly increasing the value of the area through its presence.The good-making feature at issue is thus that a building should display an understanding of the environment in which it is located.Zevi's account cannot accommodate this idea because he understands architectural success solely in terms of internal space. 30

Conclusions
In the preceding sections, I presented and evaluated various criticisms against the view that the essence of architecture is internal space.I concluded that the architectural value of a building should not be limited to its internal spatial effects because the value of other elements, such as (non-spatial) function, materials, ornamentation, and so on cannot all be reduced to spatial values.As a consequence, the interconnected network of definitions of some of the key concepts in the aesthetics of architecture should be correspondingly revised in order to take into account the complexity of architectural art.