CHAPTER 3NEOCLASSICAL, NEOGOTHIC,
BEAUX-ARTS ( 1750 – 1870 )
The neoclassical movement cannot be viewed as a universally consistent doctrine that dominated
a specific location. Not easily definable, it was prevalent throughout Europe and extended abroad
to places such as the United States and Asia. This new (and renewed) view of antiquity was subject
to extensive and varied interpretation, from archaeological neoclassical, neogothic, visionary/
revolutionary neoclassical, English neo-palladianism, and Greek and Roman revivals. Although an
extension of methods developed in the Renaissance and baroque, sketching techniques were varied
reflecting media and intent. From the academy traditions of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts the concept of
esquisse, the sketch as an organizational diagram, emerged.
Most refined in France, neoclassicism emerged out of baroque classical and was substantially trans-
formed from that of the fifteenth century. In reaction to the apparent unrestraint of baroque architec-
ture, neoclassical architects desired a return to what was perceived as the principles of architecture
(Broadbent, 1980 ). Numerous late baroque architects never embarked upon pilgrimages to the antiqui-
ties of the south, but in the middle of the eighteenth century, James Stuart and Nicholas Revett trav-
eled to record the antiquities of Greece. Similar versions of their findings were eventually published by
Julien-David LeRoy in 1758 (Broadbent, 1980 ). This renewed view of antiquity, tempered by the
rational thought of philosophers such as Decartes and Rousseau, emerged as a ‘static method of design.’
It was exemplified by principles of order, symmetry, and harmony, embodied in a French national
style sponsored by the monarchy (Kaufmann, 1955 ; Trachtenberg and Hyman, 1986 ; Egbert, 1980 ).
This restrained French classicism was partially influenced by the enlightenment ideal of humanity as
innocent and rational, harking back to a perceived naïveté of early cultures and the ‘primitive hut’
(Trachtenberg and Hyman, 1986 ; Laugier, 1977 ).
The architectural historian Joseph Rykwert writes that the ‘classic’ for these philosophers and
architects meant both antique and ‘excellent and choice.’ They believed in a unified and natural
approach, in the sense of real or genuine (Rykwert, 1980 ; Broadbent, 1980 ). As a result of these atti-
tudes, architecture displayed Greek, Roman, or Renaissance detail and/or the use of pure geometric
form. Architects were much more prone to be concerned with the building’s form than its con-
struction techniques. The beaux-arts taught the conventions of symmetry and experience of the
space, but the invariably accepted medium was masonry. The advent of iron as a structural building
material, as introduced by Henri Labrouste, meant that architects were required to consider new
methods of assembly. An evolution in building materials and construction toward the end of the
nineteenth century required those on the site to rethink assembly; but architects also had to con-
sider joints and connections.
This resulted in the production of sketches and drawings to explain and develop these innovations.
Exploratory sketches and explicit drawings were required for resolution and clarification. Although
architects (up to the middle of the nineteenth century) were still primarily concerned with form and
not construction, some semblance of construction drawings appear in France at this time. Although
Marc-Antoine Laugier writes about structure in his essay on architecture, he presents his theory in
aesthetic terms (Laugier, 1977 ). Similarly, Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc’s Dictionnaire raisonné
contains a section describing historic masonry construction (Viollet-le-Duc, 1990 ).H5719-Ch03.qxd 7/18/05 10:16 AM Page 70