Tracing Ornament Through Architecture: Unexpected Instances of Ornament in Brutalism

TRACING ORNAMENT THROUGH ARCHITECTURE: UNEXPECTED INSTANCES OF ORNAMENT IN BRUTALISM

STEPHANIE DODD @archi.steph

TRACING ORNAMENT THROUGH ARCHITECTURE:

UNEXPECTED INSTANCES OF ORNAMENT IN BRUTALISM

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1 ORNAMENT 7 ORNAMENT AND SUBLIME | FOLD | MONUMENT 11 ORNAMENT AND MODERNISM 15 BRUTALISM 23 PAUL RUDOLPH’S YALE ART & ARCHITECTURE BUILDING 27 CONCLUSION 33 REFERENCE LIST IMAGE REFERENCE LIST

35 37

APPENDIX I ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

39

TRACING ORNAMENT THROUGH ARCHITECTURE: BDES3011 Architectural History and Theory

UNEXPECTED INSTANCES OF ORNAMENT IN Tracing Ornament Through Architecture: Unexpected BRUTALISM Instances of Ornament in Brutalism

INTRODUCTION

While once integral to the practice of architecture and design, ‘ornament’ has suffered since its apparent rejection during Modernism in the twentieth century, heralded by Adolf Loos’ essay Ornament and Crime, first published in 1908. 1 Since then ornament has been “tainted by contemporary uses of the term itself” as it has “become loaded with conflicted and even negative meanings.” 2 Associations with embellishment and decoration led ornament to be considered no more than a superficial appliqué, a superfluous and unnecessary frivolity attached to architecture.

Before such a falling out of favour, however, ornament was engaged to express narratives and even social hierarchies, performing a key signalling role in architecture. According to Bloomer, conventionalisation of and the use of conventionalised ornament up until the nineteenth century facilitated a sort of ‘linguistic’ consistency and legibility in architecture, reinforcing the authority of the classical order. 3 Similarly, during this period – i.e. pre-twentieth century

Adolf Loos, "Ornament and Crime," in Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf Opel and Michael Mitchell (Riverside, California: Ariadne Press, 1998 [first published 1908]).

2 Kent C. Bloomer, The Nature of Ornament: Rhythm and Metamorphosis in Architecture (New York: W.W. Norton, 2000), 15.

3 Alina Alexandra Payne, From Ornament to Object: Genealogies of Architectural Modernism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 15.

1

1

Figure 1. Claude Perrault. A treatise of the five orders in architecture.

2

Modernism – ornamentation mobilised the visual to heighten the experience and understanding of architecture. From this perspective, using ornament in architecture has been linked to the concept of the sublime, that is, its use to evoke a sublime response. Similarly, such evocation of the sublime feeling can also be linked to Deleuze’s notion of ‘the fold’, particularly when examining Baroque ornamentation. 4 In its role as visually signalling architectural function, ornamentation also contributes to identifying monuments, which again can be related to the sublime, in the sense of architecture drawing forth a sense of being overwhelmed.

When considered in a classical and conventional sense, as posited by Bloomer, ornament is mobilised and expressed in a way that facilitates our interpretation of ornament in architecture as producing certain affects, effects and responses.

Through Bloomer’s lens, Modernist architecture devoid of conventional ornamentation produces architecture and spaces that are confusing due to their seeming illegibility. 5 Such a dearth of ornamentation suggests also that these projects are unable to evoke sublime and monumental responses.

An alternative perspective is put forward by Payne, who argues that the negative shift away from ornamentation in architecture led to the transfer of this attention to objects.

Payne traces how as the conventional use of ornamentation to “make the basically beautiful architectural order more visible” 6 dwindled in Modernist architecture, this part of “architecture’s Gilles Deleuze, "The Fold," Yale French Studies 80 (1991).

Bloomer, The Nature of Ornament: Rhythm and Metamorphosis in Architecture, 228.

6 Ibid., 20.

4 5

3

Figure 2. Narciso Tome. Toledo Cathedral Altar.

4

rhetorical apparatus…apparently ceased to exist” 7 yet re-emerged in the objects of the time such as furniture and everyday objects, as evident in the flourishing of the Arts & Crafts movement. 8 Perhaps, though, these perspectives are too deductive, and it is from this point of departure that this essay examines a similarly maligned area of architecture – Brutalism – and proposes that these projects mobilise novel, perhaps even unconventional, forms of ornamentation to elicit experiences of the sublime, the fold and monument. This essay seeks to go beyond Bloomer’s notion that ornament was largely absent in Modernism and challenges Payne’s proposition that the expressions of ornamentation merely transferred from architecture to objects, to argue that ornament enjoyed a transformation into a different form of expression in Modernism, with particular attention to Brutalism. In doing so, this essay discovers unexpected instances of ornament in Brutalism through examining Paul Rudolph’s Yale Art & Architecture Building.

Payne, From Ornament to Object: Genealogies of Architectural Modernism, 1.

8 Ibid., 196.

7

5

Figure 3. Tiffany Glass and Decorating Company. Chandelier. 1899.

6

ORNAMENT Ornament

While not attempting to give a complete history of ornament in architecture, what is addressed here is the conventional use of ornament in architecture to elicit certain responses.

Conventionally ornament “was not meant solely for pleasure” as suggested by the fathers of Modernism Loos and Le Corbusier, but “conveyed vital information about the rank of the owners” and “participated in the expression of social values, hierarchies and order.” 9 Beyond being simple decoration or for beauty’s sake, ornament played a significant role in accentuating structure and deciphering architectural spaces. 10 As outlined by Bloomer in great detail, ornament was conventionalised, which enabled a common architectural ‘dialect’ to disseminate meaning through architecture. Such conventionalisation – that is the classification and formalisation of the classical orders – contributed to bolstering the authority of the classical style. 11 One period of architecture that might be seen as taking ornamentation too far is the Baroque (and late-Baroque otherwise known as Rococo) period, yet despite their excess

Antoine Picon, Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity (Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2013), 11.

10 Bloomer, The Nature of Ornament: Rhythm and Metamorphosis in Architecture, 20.; Picon, Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity, 39.

11 Bloomer, The Nature of Ornament: Rhythm and Metamorphosis in Architecture, 47-49.; Payne, From Ornament to Object: Genealogies of Architectural Modernism, 15-16.

9

7

Figure 4. Andrea Palladio. Corinthian capital detail.

8

these “decorated elements followed established patterns.” 12 In outlining his concept of ‘the fold’ Gilles Deleuze uses the tendencies of Baroque excessive ornamentation. His analysis of Baroque embellishment and adornment in art, architecture and music reveals “the incommensurate and extravagant” 13 deployment of ornament. For Deleuze, “the problem is not how to finish a fold, but how to continue it, make it go through the roof, take it to infinity.” 14 But Deleuzian notions of the fold do not only relate to the Baroque period. Expressions of the fold can be found in the undulating works of Frank Gehry or the hyper-embellished hypothetical projects of Mark Foster Gage. Such works recharacterise ornament and mobilise not only the concept of the fold, but also the sublime, to elicit emotional responses to their architecture.

Bloomer, The Nature of Ornament: Rhythm and Metamorphosis in Architecture, 22.

13 Deleuze, "The Fold," 246.

14 Ibid., 242.

12

9

Figure 5. Mark Foster Gage Architects. Khaleesi Tower.

10

ORNAMENT AND Ornament/Architecture/Sublime SUBLIME | FOLD | MONUMENT Where the fold is potentially concerned with more tactile expressions or revelations (such as in music), sublime refers more to the overall experiential qualities of an object or space.

As architecture is concerned with space-making and -shaping, we can identify moments of the sublime in architecture. While the concept of the sublime has been characterised in varying ways over time by authors such as Longinus, Burke, Boileau, Freud and Kant, it can be crudely summarised as an overwhelming feeling drawn out of something complexly beautiful to the point of potentially being terrifying. 15 Saint-Girons outlines that the sublime is often concerned with the beautiful, but goes beyond it: “whereas the beautiful creates calm satisfaction … the sublime is troubling and involves a stirring of the entire being.” 16 Concerning nature, Burke outlines the relationship between the sublime and astonishment: “the passion caused by the great and the sublime in nature, where those causes operate most powerfully, is Astonishment; and astonishment is that state of soul, in which all its motions are suspended with some degree of horror.” 17 He goes on to conclude that “astonishment…is the effect of the sublime in its highest degree.” 18

Baldine Saint-Girons, "Sublime," in Dictionary of Untranslatables, ed.

Barbara Cassin, et al. (Princeton University Press, 2014), 1092-3.

16 Ibid., 1094.

17 Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (London: J. Dodsley, 1776), 41-2.

18 Ibid., 42.

15

11

Figure 6. Mark Foster Gage Architects. Khaleesi Tower.

12

There are countless architectural works that can be labelled as producing sublime effects and affects, too many to mention here, considering it is beyond the scope of this essay. That aside, the role of ornament in creating such sublime effects in undeniable, whether the hyper-ornamentation of Rococo decoration and Mark Foster Gage’s projects, or the under-ornamentation of more stark expressions of the sublime such as Etienne Boullee’s Cenotaph for Newton which relies on sheer scale more than anything to affect a sublime response.

Burke’s language highlights the experiential dimension of the concept of the sublime, which can be applied in many ways to architecture. Returning to the Baroque and Deleuze’s notion of ‘the fold’, the layering of ornamentation in Baroque architecture produces not only an infinitely undulating surface or element but relates to Burke’s ideas on astonishment and the sublime. That is, for something to be considered sublime it does not necessarily have to be objectively beautiful. Here we can access a gateway to exploring architecture that engages Deleuze’s fold to elicit sublime responses beyond the conventional characterisation or dependency on beauty and artistic quality. This discovery leads us to questioning the role of conventional ornament in producing said sublime effects.

But before we can investigate this idea further, we must understand the Modernist perspective regarding ornament, with attention to its supposed rejection.

13

Figures 7 & 8. Etienne Boullee. Cenotaph for Newton.

14

ORNAMENT AND ORNAMENT AND MODERNISM MODERNISM As has been discussed until this point, ornament plays an integral role in architecture. Ornament is vital to the communication of a building’s purpose, status or function and even contributes to drawing forth sublime experience through embellished folds and monumental scale. Once conventionalised, ornament enjoyed a privileged position in architecture, perhaps even to the point where some imagined that such a position could not be jeopardised. After the Rococo style, one might have expected rebalance from over-embellishment to starkness; however, decorative and ornamental arts and practices continued to flourish in the periods that followed evident in the ongoing monopoly of the classical orders and new stylised shapes of Art Nouveau.

A severe disruption was brewing. Now considered as one of the manifestoes for Modernism, Loos’ controversial and pithy essay “Ornament and Crime” 19 heralded the demise of ornament and the birth of a new style, known later as Modernism. Loos was responding to a period where “architecture had been seen as an overscaled abstract sculpture” 20 where excessive ornament had undermined its original position as a means to accentuate and highlight structural elements (except for the columnar orders, as noted

by Payne, that “survived the modernist turn” 21). While Loos, "Ornament and Crime."

From Ornament to Object: Genealogies of Architectural Modernism, 15..

21 Ibid.

19

20Payne,

15

Figure 9. Poster advertising Adolf Loos lecture on Ornament and Crime.

16

probably not intentionally, Loos contributed to the blanket discarding of ornament from the vocabulary of architecture. 22 As Payne summarises, “[i]n his view, ornament was the sexual smear of a degenerate culture, akin to primitive man’s tattoo, at odds with modern clothing, food, and objects of daily use…it represented a throwback to a nostalgic past that had long been superseded.” 23 Loos seems to call for a shift to austerity where labour is spent only on what matters, as he sees ornament as “wasted labor and therefore wasted health…it also means wasted material.”

The “relegation” of ornament in modern architecture to the status of “mere accessory” was accelerated by another of the founding fathers of Modernism, Le Corbusier. 24 In his publication Towards a New Architecture Le Corbusier adopts a similarly distasteful tone towards ornament as Loos, infamously likening previously ornamental styles to “a feather on a woman’s head; it is sometimes pretty, though not always, and never anything more.” 25 Such blanket rejection of ornamentation is evident in the architecture designed by both Loos and Le Corbusier, as well as many others from the Modernist movement. The pared back appearance and priority of mass and surface over other elements of works such as Loos’ Villa Müller and Le Corbusier’s Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau proved a stark contrast to highly ornamented buildings that had been the pinnacle of architecture until this time. In fact, Payne describes the disruption this “unit of Ibid., 1.

Ibid., 217.

24 Picon, Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity, 41.

25 Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture (New York: Dover Publications, 1986 [first published 1931]), 25.

22 23

17

Figure 10. Adolf Loos. Muller House. 1930.

18

architecture” – as it was intended to be one part of a larger urban development – caused as it was “seemingly parachuted behind the Grand Palais.” 26 Payne continues that this building “offered an instructive glimpse into the pair’s (Le Corbusier and Amédée Ozenfant) definition of modernity” with “the combination of volume and light [as] its primary message.” 27 But to say that the Modernist period was completely devoid of ornament is myopic. As Payne demonstrates in From Ornament to Object, while ornamentation in architecture seemingly disappeared, she argues that such attention was transferred to the objects of the same period. 28 For Payne, the “apparently simple” furnishings of the Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau existed “in a dialogue with the paintings on the walls, a haunting gallery of similar objects.” 29 Together the “purist paintings confronted purist interiors” 30 and set up a new referential system of how architecture dealt with ornament. At this point in early Modernism, Payne acknowledges how objects emerged as the “principal actors”, implying that objects supplanted ornament. 31 The focus on objects during this period seems anathema to the Modernist perspectives on labour, particularly as Loos decries the wasted labour and wasted health spent producing ornament. 32 Nevertheless, Modernists concerned themselves with designing buildings for Payne, From Ornament to Object: Genealogies of Architectural Modernism, 2-3.

27 Ibid., 3.

28Ibid.

29 Ibid., 3.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid., 4.

32 Loos, "Ornament and Crime," 171.

26

19

Figure 11. Le Corbusier. Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau. 1925.

20

space and light and populating them with well-crafted objects and art (as discussed above).

Similarly contradictory in this light is Le Corbusier’s desire to preserve the marking of wooden formwork on concrete in his later works “to make the viewer aware of the productive hand of the construction worker.” 33 This contradiction is duly noted

by Picon who suggests such a tactic was “strongly reminiscent of one of the key functions of ornament according to 19th-centurty English theorist John Ruskin.” 34 While not conventional ornament, the beginnings of Brutalism as we now know it emerged at this point. Picon offers the term “neo-ornamental elements” to describe this category of material ornamentation, such as those drawn from the markings left by wooden concrete formwork. 35 These elements highlight an attention to surface quality that perhaps demonstrates a preoccupation with or a desire to transform and reimagine instances of ornamentation in architecture.

Picon, Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity, 21.

Ibid.

35 Ibid.

33 34

21

Figure 12. Le Corbusier. Unité d’Habitation, Marseille. 1945.

22

BRUTALISM BRUTALISM

Until a very recent spur in popularity, the architectural style known as Brutalism suffered a complete fall out of favour similar to that which ornament suffered at the hands of Modernism. Characterised by massive, mainly concrete structures, the reception of Brutalism has been tainted by the unfortunate translation of the French term for raw concrete – béton brut – to an ‘ism’ with a prefix associated with violence and aggression. From a starting point of this unfortunate transliteration, Brutalism flourished as the civic style of post-Second World War rebuilding and the reintroduction of monumentality to architecture. Brutalism’s characteristics of concrete and massive shapes make this style easily distinguishable and therefore the subject of much debate among architecture circles and laypeople alike.

As a branch of Modernism, Brutalism harnessed the desire for honest materiality in architecture, expressed through the “as found” 36 quality of concrete formed using wooden formwork. Such attention to surface is the topic of Ben Pell’s book on examining the re-emergence of this type of ornamentation in The Articulate Surface. 37 In contemporary parlance, ‘surface’ has been used as a more benign term to describe ornament, almost certainly due to the negative connotations associated with ornament due to Modernism.

Reyner Banham, "The New Brutalism," October 136, no. Spring (2011).

Reprint of original essay in December 1955 edition of Architectural Review 37 Ben Pell, The Articulate Surface: Ornament and Technology in Contemporary Architecture (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2010).

36

23

Figure 13. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

24

Pell analyses how different technological developments have facilitated the return of surface – and by extension ornament – to favour in architecture, especially in creating eye-catching facades. Pell attributes this rise in popularity to technological developments that enable architects to create novel and unique surfaces from new and existing materials. These surfaces then become the identity of the buildings they encase, adding to the vernacular of ornamental recognition.

Such innovation carries on from the era of Parametricism which enabled the realisation of Gehry’s and Hadid’s organic, flowing, folding shapes. Yet Pell acknowledges that such innovative textures are not peculiar to this current digital era, but probably had some grounding in the attention to and fixation on material qualities during Modernism. Pell references the Brutalist work of Paul Rudolph’s Yale Art & Architecture building as evidence of this treatment of and revitalisation of ornament as demonstrated in its surface quality.

25

Figure 14. Frank Gehry. Guggenheim Bilbao. 1997.

26

BRUTALISM | PAUL RUDOLPH’S YALE ART & ARCHITECTURE BUILDING Paul Rudolph’s Yale Art & Architecture Building – now known as Rudolph Hall in honour of the original architect – is “an imposing, fortress-like building that juxtaposes masses of textured concrete with layers of steel-framed glazing.” 38 (Contrary to commonly held ideas about Brutalism, the style is also characterised using steel and glazing, as demonstrated in the Hunstanton School designed by Alison and Peter Smithson, the proponents of ‘New Brutalism’ in England in the early 1950s.) The building rises seven storeys and has 37 changes in floor level, with two large skylights to facilitate natural light. 39 Both the exterior and interior concrete surfaces have undergone a process of ‘bush-hammering’ to create a ribbed or even corduroy effect. 40 Pell notes that such treatment of the concrete met with criticism at the time for being “too effeminate, too dangerously close to overt expressionism and ornament for an otherwise robust, Modernist structure.” 41 This ‘bush-hammering’ technique seems a departure from earlier Brutalist techniques to imbue the material of concrete with texture by maintaining the markings left by timber formwork.

Jessica Mairs, "Brutalist Buildings: Yale Art and Architecture Building, Connecticut by Paul Rudolph," https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/26/yale-art-and-architecture-buildingpaul-rudolph-brutalism/.

39 Atlas of Brutalist Architecture, ed. Virginia McLeod and Clare Churly (New York: Phaidon Press, 2018), 71.

40 Ibid.

41 Pell, The Articulate Surface: Ornament and Technology in Contemporary Architecture, 7.

38

27

Figure 15. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

Figure 16. Alison and Peter Smithson. Hunstanton School. 1954 28

For a Brutalist building at the peak of Modernism, there is no doubt that Rudolph sought to incorporate a new kind of ornamentation in this building through using these techniques of bush-hammering and including 37 changes in floor level.

Rudolph “mixed reflective micas, seashells, stone and even branches of coral” into the aggregate to further enhance the optic qualities of the bush-hammered concrete. 42 The ribbed concrete creates an atmospheric space through “a vibration of light and shadow on the surface, engaging the viewer with walls which no longer simply delimit space, but actively contribute to the architectural experience through their conditions of excess materiality and atmospheric effects.” 43 Pell’s description touches on the sentiment of the sublime in architecture as induced by the experience of being in a highly complex and textured space. The sublime quality of this building is heightened as Rudolph uses materials to harness peripheral perception, a key element of grasping atmospheres, as described by Juhani Pallasmaa. 44 This vibration of light and texture also recalls a feature of the fold, discussed above, where surfaces seem infinite due to their materiality. Here we discover not only how an alternative manifestation of ornament is present in Brutalism, but also how this ornamentation evokes notions of the fold and sublime. Sheer scale of the building brings forth qualities of the monumental

42 Timothy M. Rohan, "Rendering the Surface: Paul Rudolph's Art and Architecture Building at Yale," Grey Room, no. 1 (2000): 86.

43 Pell, The Articulate Surface: Ornament and Technology in Contemporary Architecture, 7.

44 Juhani Pallasmaa, "Space, Place and Atmosphere. Emotion and Peripherical Perception in Architectural Experience," Lebenswelt: Aesthetics and Philosophy of Experience 4 (2014): 244.

29

Figure 17. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

30

in architecture, which was one part of the original goals of Brutalism during the Modernist era. 45 Beyond the physical realisation of Rudolph Hall, another element that reveals attention to ornamentation are Rudolph’s own drawings of this and other projects. While plan drawings

by Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects, who undertook the building’s restoration and renovation following a fire, show the rational layout of design studios, offices, auditoriums and classrooms, Rudolph’s original drawings highlight the degree of complexity that rests in the building. Furthermore, the technique of bush-hammering the concrete relates the building back to its origins in the architect’s office: a drawing meticulously crafted over many hours. Just as conventional ornament was used to accentuate and highlight the structural work of buildings, Rudolph’s ornament of ribbed concrete draws attention to the work put in physically designing and drafting the building. Rudolph’s own drawing technique uses layers of parallel ruled lines to build tone to create depth and explore lighting conditions in his designs. These methodically drawn lines recall once again the Modernist desire to highlight the work of the crafting hand, with their subtlety adding texture and ornament to what might usually be a straightforward section drawing. Layered again is the reference in the gouged concrete to the engraving method of graphic reproduction to reproduce architectural images in printed books. 46

Atlas of Brutalist Architecture, 6.

Rohan, "Rendering the Surface: Paul Rudolph's Art and Architecture Building at Yale," 87.

45 46

31

Figure 18. Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects. Yale Art & Architecture Building. Plan drawing from 2008 renovation.

Figure 19. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

32

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

As a branch of Modernism, examining Rudolph’s Brutalist Yale Art & Architecture Building reveals how ornamentation was in fact prevalent and even flourishing at a time that apparently rejected the practice. Beyond Payne’s assertion that attention to ornament was transferred from architecture to objects, or Bloomer’s conception that this period of architecture was devoid of ornament, Rudolph Hall demonstrates the rich layering of ornament from the level of conception and drafting to its final realisation with detailed surface treatment to elicit an atmospheric effect. That the building’s bush-hammered concrete surfaces gives way to “a unique optical effect for even the most casual observer” 47 shows how this use of a veiled ornamental technique evokes elements of the fold and the sublime in Brutalism. Further to that, the building’s scale and imposing nature captures the intention to reintroduce monumentality to architecture. 48

Pell, The Articulate Surface: Ornament and Technology in Contemporary Architecture, 7.

48 Atlas of Brutalist Architecture, 6.

47

33

Figure 20. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

34

REFERENCE LIST

Atlas of Brutalist Architecture. Edited by Virginia McLeod and Clare Churly. New York: Phaidon Press, 2018.

Banham, Reyner. "The New Brutalism." October 136, no.

Spring (2011): 19-28.

Bloomer, Kent C. The Nature of Ornament: Rhythm and Metamorphosis in Architecture. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000.

Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. London: J. Dodsley, 1776.

Corbusier, Le. Towards a New Architecture. New York: Dover Publications, 1986 [first published 1931]. London: J. Rodker, 1931.

Deleuze, Gilles. "The Fold." Yale French Studies 80 (1991): 227-47.

Loos, Adolf. "Ornament and Crime." In Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, edited by Adolf Opel and Michael Mitchell, 167-76. Riverside, California: Ariadne Press, 1998 [first published 1908].

Mairs, Jessica. "Brutalist Buildings: Yale Art and Architecture Building, Connecticut by Paul Rudolph." https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/26/yale-art-andarchitecture-building-paul-rudolph-brutalism/.

Pallasmaa, Juhani. "Space, Place and Atmosphere. Emotion and Peripherical Perception in Architectural Experience." Lebenswelt: Aesthetics and Philosophy of Experience 4 (2014): 230-45.

Payne, Alina Alexandra. From Ornament to Object: Genealogies of Architectural Modernism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.

35

Pell, Ben. The Articulate Surface: Ornament and Technology in Contemporary Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2010.

Picon, Antoine. Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2013.

Rohan, Timothy M. "Rendering the Surface: Paul Rudolph's Art and Architecture Building at Yale." Grey Room, no. 1 (2000): 85-107.

Saint-Girons, Baldine. "Sublime." In Dictionary of Untranslatables, edited by Barbara Cassin, Emily Apter, Jacques Lezra and Michael Wood: Princeton University Press, 2014.

36

IMAGE REFERENCE LIST Figure 1. Claude Perrault. A Treatise on the Five Orders of Columns, trans.

John James (London: Benk. Mott, 1708), Plate I, p.43.

Figure 2. Narciso Tome. Toledo Cathedral Altar. From https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Transparente_of_Toledo_Cathedral_09.jpg Figure 3. Tiffany Glass and Decorating Company. Chandelier. 1899. From https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_69.150.jpg Figure 4. Andrea Palladio. Corinthian capital detail. The first book of architecture. 1693.

Figure 5. Mark Foster Gage Architects. Khaleesi Tower. New York. From https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2015/12/41-West-57th-Street_Mark-Foster-Gage-Architects_New-York-City_Gothic_skyscraper_102-storey_dezeen_936_8-e1450106820135.jpg Figure 6. Mark Foster Gage Architects. Khaleesi Tower. New York. From https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2015/12/41-West-57th-Street_Mark-Foster-Gage-Architects_New-York-City_Gothic_skyscraper_102-storey_dezeen_936_0.jpg Figure 7. Etienne Boullee. Cenotaph for Newton. From https://images.adsttc. com/media/images/53a2/6445/c07a/8079/c500/0230/slideshow/N7701015_ JPEG_2_2DM.jpg?1403151420 Figure 8. Etienne Boullee. Cenotaph for Newton. From https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/53a2/643b/c07a/8079/c500/022f/ slideshow/N7701015_JPEG_4_4DM.jpg?1403151409 Figure 9. Poster advertising Adolf Loos lecture on Ornament and Crime.

From https://gregletson.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/ornament.jpg?w=419&h=&zoom=2 Figure 10. Adolf Loos. Muller House. 1930. From https://images. adsttc.com/media/images/5486/a39f/e58e/cef0/ed00/00e6/slideshow/3973876219_426f905c76_o.jpg?1418109847

37

Figure 11. Le Corbusier. Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau. 1925. From http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbucache/900x720_2049_618.jpg?r=0 Figure 12. Le Corbusier. Unité d’Habitation, Marseille. 1945. From http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbucache/900x720_2049_799.jpg?r=0 Figure 13. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963. From https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2014/09/Yale-Building-by-Paul-Rudolph_dezeen_468_3.jpg Figure 14. Frank Gehry. Guggenheim Bilbao. 1997. From https://cms.guggenheim-bilbao. eus/uploads/2019/03/edificio-exterior-medio-guggenheim-bilbao-museoa.jpeg Figure 15. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

Figure 16. Alison and Peter Smithson. Hunstanton School. 1954. From https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/wp-content/uploads//2017/01/Escuela_Hunstanton_7.jpg Figure 17. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

Figure 18. Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects. Yale Art & Architecture Building.

Plan drawing from 2008 renovation. From https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5013/db8c/28ba/0d3b/4500/0096/slideshow/stringio.jpg?1430301668 Figure 19. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

Figure 20. Paul Rudolph. Yale Art & Architecture Building. 1963.

38