Jacques Lemercier’s Drawing of a Model of a Building

JACQUES LEMERCIER’S DRAWING OF A MODEL OF A BUILDING

Jacques Lemercier’s “General Scenographic View” of the Villa Farnese in the Italian town of Caprarola, was completed in 1608 when the Frenchman was a young aspiring architect of only twenty three years old on an educational field trip to Rome. The cutaway drawing was an ambitious project that took inspiration from the realm of anatomical dissection (notably the work of Vesalius), the sectional models inaugurated by Michelangelo, and the new found laws of the universe put forward by the astronomer Johannes Kepler.

In the context of an intellectual background that aims to reveal a unified model of the universe during the Renaissance episteme, the thesis reveals the layers of distinction between what is represented, the representation itself, and the knowledge it encapsulates. The study of Jacques Lemercier’s drawing therefore allows for a rare and detailed examination of the engraving as a living picture of the building, as a conceptual model of the building, and as a representation of a model of the building. In turn, the thesis allows for of a rare glimpse into the world of 17th century humanist perception.

JACQUES LEMERCIER’S DRAWING OF A MODEL OF A BUILDING The Representation of a Unified Model of the Villa Farnese in the Renaissance Episteme by

Daniel G. Reynolds

Daniel G. Reynolds

JACQUES LEMERCIER’S DRAWING OF A MODEL OF A BUILDING The Representation of a Unified Model of the Villa Farnese in the Renaissance Episteme

By: Daniel G. Reynolds W1350624 History & Theory Dissertation 4ARC740 Tutor: Richard Difford 2012-2013 Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Westminster for the award of Master of Architecture [RIBA Part II]

| Aknowledgements

Various people have helped me in the writing of this dissertation. In particular, I would like to thank my tutor Richard Difford for his enthusiasm concerning my research project, his patience and his invaluable guidance. I would also like to thank my parents and my sister for their great effort in proof reading my work and their support which always keeps me going. Finally I would like to thank the rest of my family and my friends for being there when I needed them.

1

| Contents Abstract ................................................................................................ 03 Introduction .......................................................................................... 05 Chapter One - The Image of the Building .............................................. 15 1.1 - Caprarola as a Backdrop for the Villa Farnese ................................ 17 1.2 - The Building seen as an Imposing Structure ................................... 21 1.3 - Graphic Language of Drawings in Renaissance .............................. 23 1.4 - Lemercier’s Living Picture .............................................................. 27 Chapter Two - The Model of the building .............................................. 35 2.1 - The World Seen as a Unified Whole ............................................. 37 2.2 - The Role of the Architectural Model in the Renaissance ................. 39 2.3 - The Concept of “Architectural Model” ............................................ 43 2.4 - Lemercier’s Model of the Villa Farnese ........................................... 45 Chapter Three - The Image of the Model of the Building ....................... 51 3.1 - Foucault’s Renaissance Episteme .................................................. 52 3.2 - Lemercier’s Drawing of Michelangelo’s Model ................................ 53 3.3 - The Act of Cutting: Lemercier Seen as a Hero ................................. 57 3.4 - Idealisation of the Building .............................................................. 59 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 63 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 69 List of Figures ....................................................................................... 75 Appendix .............................................................................................. 79

2

3

| Abstract This dissertation is a study of Jacques Lemercier’s cutaway drawing of the Villa Farnese in Caprarola. The “General Scenographic View” was completed in 1608, when the Frenchman was a young aspiring architect on a field trip to Rome. This particular example is pioneering because it is not only the most sophisticated and detailed cutaway drawing of the early 17th century, but it is also a unique communicative tool enabling us to understand the complexity of the Villa Farnese and the way in which intellectuals of the time interpreted the world they lived in. The thesis is orientated towards proving that the humanist philosophy of the time, which considered the world as a unified entity, is manifested in Lemercier’s drawing. In turn, the study of the drawing can shed some new light onto the perceived model of the universe of the Renaissance. The role of the drawing as a piece of tangible information, which is accessible and shared amongst students and scholars, is explored in the first part of the study by tracing parallels with anatomical drawings of the same period. In the same way that illustrations of dissections of the body were manuals for the emerging circle of anatomists and theorists, Lemercier’s cutaway allows the viewer to be a surrogate witness to the resulting findings. What Lemercier reveals in his drawing is then further explored in the second part through a comparison between the production of the drawing and the production of architectural models, specifically sectional models, which were inaugurated by Michelangelo. The image is replaced with a theoretical model, which serves to legitimise the building’s place in the humanist cosmos, where all things of the world are unified and form part of a greater system. Finally, the third method is by considering Lemercier’s masterpiece in terms of the renaissance episteme, where the artist is seen as a great revealer of truth. What happens in actuality is the idealisation of the building through the drawing which is a convenient interpretation of a real world entity. The conceptual model of the building is shown to us in the biased light of the Renaissance episteme. Thus, the dissertation reveals layers of distinction between what is represented, the representation itself, and the knowledge it encapsulates. In simple terms, the building is a real entity in the world, and the image is evidently a representation of it.

This representation communicates Lemercier’s interpretation of the building, which is an idealised version and exists in the virtual model he communicates through his cutaway. The study of Jacques Lemercier’s drawing therefore allows for a rare and detailed examination of the engraving

4 as a living picture of the building, as a conceptual model of the building, and as a representation of a model of the building, in the context of an intellectual background concerned with revealing a unified model that confirms the laws of the universe established during the Renaissance episteme.

5

| Introduction

6

Introduction

Fig.1 - Scenografic View of the Caprarola Palace. Lemercier, J., 1608.

Introduction

7

This dissertation is a study of Jacques Lemercier’s general “Scenographic” drawing of the Caprarola palace dedicated to the owner cardinal Odoardo Farnese in16081 (see Fig.1). The historian Richard James Tuttle has argued that: “No other printed representation of any Renaissance building is more complete and clear than this one. It is truly extraordinary that an image of such quality and complexity should be one of the earliest works by Lemercier, who made it when he only was twenty three years old.”2

The French architect (in the making) had been in Rome since 1607 on a study trip and there he stayed until 1612.3 This drawing belongs to a small selection of unique pieces of architectural representation present in the renaissance time: the cutaway drawing. This particular example is pioneering because it is not only the most sophisticated and detailed cut-away drawing of the early 17th century, but it is also a unique communicative tool enabling us to understand the complexity of the Villa Farnese and the way in which intellectuals of the time interpreted the world they lived in. This revealing drawing takes advantage of the building’s regular pentagonal structure, and shows in a single projection a fifth of its ground floor plan, half of the elevation and half of the section, thus explaining all we need to know about the formal language of the building. Through his drawing, Lemercier communicates flawlessly the unique complexity of the Pentagonal Villa with its circular courtyard and its series of layered terracing, ramps and staircases leading up to it. Furthermore, he shows the difficult topographical context and the landscape design towards the back of the Villa. We shall see on further inspection that Lemercier conveys a highly sophisticated perspective sectional cut of the Villa Farnese which detaches itself from reality in order to convey a perfect unified model. It is not impossible to imagine the young architect being influenced by great architectural models of the time, such as the ones produced by Michelangelo and Bernini, as the resulting image bears more resemblance to the representation of a model than the representation of a building. This student of architecture understood the importance of great “all encompassing” architectural models, which helped towards the conception of the drawing and in turn allowed it to be a powerful communication tool.

1 The drawing was first brought to my attention whilst I was reading “Architecture and its Image: Four Centuries of Architectural Representation” by Blau, E., Kaufman, E and Evans, R., (1989). Montreal : Canadian Centre for Architecture, p.182. One of the original prints was found in a large format book in the British Library entitled King’s Topographical Collection, LXXX., 59-80, described with the title “Pianta e due vedute del Palazzo di Caprarola, da F. Villamaena”. The drawing is mistakenly attributed to Villamena, when it is in fact a Jacques Lemercier original.

2

Tuttle, R.,J, (2002). Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola. Milan: Electa, p.226.

Gady, A., (2005). Jacques Lemercier: Architecte et Ingénieur du Roi. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, p.19.

3

8

Introduction

Fig.2 - De Humani Corporis Fabrica front cover.

Vesalius, A., 1553. At the centre and highlighted in red, Vesalius reveals the inner truths of the dissected human body on the operating table.

Introduction

9

During the Renaissance, many fields of study such as architecture and anatomy shared the same sensibility. There was a common ideology which required artists to acquaint themselves with the structure and physical properties of natural phenomena in order to ensure objectivity. Thus art developed a strong relationship with scientific explorations, which turned to the detailed study of the human body.4 After all, it was a new era where “man was the measure of all things”.5 Illustrations of these dissections started to circulate amongst intellectuals. Anatomical drawings instructed and demonstrated the procedures and findings of dissections. However, it was not until the publication of Andreas Vesalius’s “De Humani Coporis Fabrica” in 1543 that anatomical drawings went beyond the role of the instruction manual for surgeons, and truly started to expose the unprecedented understanding of man’s physiology. Martin Kemp argues that Vesalius’ text was a philosophical treatise on the architectural magnificence of the human body. By revealing the miracles of bodily form and function through magnificent representations, he was paying homage to God as the supreme edifice in the created world6. Vesalius is portrayed as a conscious hero whose task it is to measure the divine symmetry of the human body provided by God7 (see Fig.2). At the start of the 16th century, the pioneers of anatomical illustration, such as Vesalius and Leonardo Da Vinci, cut objects of study, isolating them and taking them apart. They made obstructions transparent, in order to make the subject of study visible. These ground breaking techniques no longer sought to depict truthful representations of human subjects; they literally peeled off the relatively common exterior to reveal the unknown workings of the interior.

These “revealing drawings” are symbolic of man’s urgency to shed light on unknown phenomena, and in turn serve as a visualisation tool for new discoveries. The nature of this type of anatomical illustration shares the same sensibilities as the cutaway perspective in architecture. After all, Lemercier’s cutaway offers up for inspection the insides of the Villa Farnese much like the depiction of an anatomical dissection by Vesalius (see Fig.3).

The thesis explores the role of the cutaway drawing of the Renaissance, notably Lemercier’s unsurpassed masterpiece, in order to understand the cultural underpinning behind architectural scholars during the 17th century.

The interest lies within Lemercier’s motivation behind the use of the cutaway in order to explain effectively complex architectural compositions.

Saunders, J.B and O’Malley, (1973). Illustrations from the works of Andreas Vesalius of Brussels. Cleveland: World Publishing Company, p.22.

4

Kemp, M., and Wallace, M. (2000). Spectacular Bodies. London: Hayward Gallery Berkeley, p.13. The sentence “Man is the measure of all things” originates from the Greek philosopher Protagoras, and was a sentence encapsulating the spirit of the renaissance).

5

6

Ibid, p.23.

7

Ibid, p,23.

10

Introduction

Fig.3 - Muscle man of De Humani Corporis Fabrica. Vesalius, A., 1553.

Introduction

11

The thesis is orientated towards proving that the humanist philosophy of the time, which considered the world as a unified entity, is manifested in Lemercier’s drawing, and in turn the study of the drawing can shed some new light onto the subject matter. If we consider all fields of intellectual pursuit during the Renaissance, there was a fundamental train of thought where knowledge meant uncovering the resemblances that linked things to one another in an infinite chain of similitudes. To know meant to interpret, to find a way from the visible marks to what they resembled.8 This is famously identified in the new age of anatomy, called the great leap forward that came with the innovation of Vesalius. This study will therefore compare Lemercier’s illustration to anatomical drawings of the same period as dissections were a great means towards progressing society’s knowledge and understanding of the human body. The representations of actual dissections or the dissected parts of the human body were effectively manuals for the emerging circle of anatomists and theorists. They allowed them to be surrogate witnesses to the resulting findings, or actually enable them to perform the dissections in question themselves in order to be first hand witnesses. Secondly, the study will analyse the relationship between production of the drawing and the production of architectural models, specifically the sectional model which was inaugurated by Michelangelo. Here, the image is replaced with a theoretical model, which serves to legitimise the building’s place in the humanist cosmos, where all things of the world are unified and form part of a greater system. Finally, the study will consider Lemercier’s masterpiece in terms of the renaissance episteme, where the artist is seen as a great revealer of truth. It will become apparent that Lemercier idealises the building through his drawing which is a convenient interpretation of a real world entity. The conceptual model of the building is shown to us in the biased light of the Renaissance episteme. Thus, the dissertation reveals layers of distinction between what is represented, the representation itself, and the knowledge it encapsulates.

In simple terms, the building is a real entity in the world, and the image is evidently a representation of it. This representation communicates Lemercier’s interpretation of the building, which is an idealised version and exist in the virtual model he communicates through his cutaway. Consequently we shall set the humanist graphic culture of representation that was present in 1608, and its role as a pedagogical tool, as a historical background.

The dissertation proposes a structure organised in three parts. First of all, the dissertation will investigate the notion of Lemercier’s drawing of the villa Farnese perceived as a living picture. Secondly, we shall explore the concept of the architectural cutaway model comparable to dissected human bodies, and the conceptual model of the building in terms of revelatory power.

8

Oksala, J., (2005). Foucault on Freedom. Cambridge: University press, p.33.

12

Introduction

Fig.4 - Projection lines of the pentagonal shape of the Villa Farnese. Diagram produced by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Conceptual Model of the Building

Image of the Building

Viewpoint of the Image of the Model of the Building

Fig.5 - Layers of distinction between the image of the building, the conceptual model of the building and the image of the conceptual model of the building. Diagram produced by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Introduction

13

Finally, we shall study the notion that Lemercier’s engraving is not an image of a building, nor a model of a building, but a representational image of a model of a building showing the Villa Farnese in a biased light (see Fig.4 and Fig.5).

14

15

| Chapter One The Image of the Building

16

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

Fig.6 - Viewpoint standing in front of the Villa Farnese. Photo by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

17

1.1 | Caprarola as a Backdrop for the Villa Farnese The subject for Lemercier’s innovative engraving is the Villa Farnese which is situated directly above the Italian hilltop town of Caprarola near Rome.

It is an enormous and unique Renaissance construction which is elevated higher than any other building in the vicinity, and thus dominates all of its surroundings (see Fig.6). It was originally conceived as a pentagonal fortress

by Baldassare Peruzi who completed the foundations in 1530. However he was replaced by the architect Jacopo Barozzi Vignola who transformed the earlier design into an elegant residence situated between a vast expanse of terraced park at the back and a radical revision of the town plan of Caprarola at the front. The essence of the Villa Farnese which was completed in 1587 was captured in its entirety by Lemercier because he managed to convey all the contextual aspects of the design. At this point, it is critical to study the design of the Villa and the re-design of its surroundings in order to understand why Lemercier chose to communicate the ideas behind the architecture so audaciously.

Considering that the villa was meant to be a country retreat for the Farnese family that lived in Rome, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese spent a fortune on its construction, including the decoration of the internal spaces with frescoes.9 The first space on entering the palace is the Sala d’Ercole (room of Hercules) and serves to legitimise the local rule of the Farnese family in Northern Lazio.

In the Sala dei Fasti Farnesiani (room of Farnese deeds) situated to the left, these frescoes portray the exploits of the Farnese Family, often exaggerating or even completely inventing glorifying stories10. To the right, the famous “Room of the World Map” or “Sala del Mappamondo”, displays an enormous decorated ceiling showing the entirety of the known world as it was in 1574, when the frescoes were completed. Reinforcing the grandeur of the building, are a series of highly decorated water fountains integrated in the design of the courtyard and the landscaped gardens which are adorned with follies and mazes (see appendix for further images). Externally, geometrical obsession governs Vignola’s design of the pentagonal palace with its circular courtyard, triangular piazza in front, and a pair of large square garden terraces behind.

Vignola converted the elevated military fortress into a representation of celestial order, by building a circular internal courtyard inside the pentagonal walls of the fortress11. The building is thus a highly articulated architectural composition, consisting in highly decorated internal spaces showing off the Farnese family and its intellectual superiority. The exceedingly formal design 9

Gamrath, H., (2007). Farnese: Pomp, Power and Politics in Renaissance Italy. Rome: L’Erma, p.100.

10

Ibid, p.101.

11

Castex, J. (2008). Architecture of Italy. London: Greenwood Press, p. 100.

18

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

Fig.7 - Villa Farnese Ground Floor Plan and Landscaping. Image produced by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

19

coupled with a rigid landscape plan seems to assert the elevated position of Pope Alessandro’s Farnese’s legacy (see Fig.7). The baronial residence, which in its internal and external decoration portrays the power and magnificence of the Farnese family, not only completely dominates the town centre by its position and overwhelming scale, but also by the means of Vignola’s revision of the town masterplan described by the landscape model of “road with focal point”.12 The central street named “Via Diritta”, is set perfectly on the building’s axis of symmetry, and runs right across the medieval town centre. The importance of this scheme seems to be fully appreciated in the 18th century description of Caprarola by Sebastiani: “This magnanimous Prince... thought fit... to erect in that land a residence for his delight and his own abode and he made use of the highest site of that land: as if to reduce it as he did then, to a mere backdrop, so that the residence did become the noble point of reference of a marvellous perspective.”13

Vignola built this long straight road departing from the entrance of the Villa, crossing the entire town, and going beyond as an “axis mundi”, the axis around which the Universe turns around14, in order to highlight the idea of Caprarola as a symbol of the Universe (see Fig.8). Originally, the site was accessible only from a branch off a main road running along the bottom of the valley. In order to build the new direct road, Vignola’s plan for “Caprarola Nova” necessitated the expropriation of many old town houses that were rebuilt with facades adapted to late Renaissance designs. It has also been argued that some houses were even shortened in order to seem even smaller than the imposing Villa15. At the top of the ascent of Via Diritta, a vast triangular space opens up directly onto the view of the main facade and its bastions. The Villa Farnese dwarfs the entire village. In Vignola’s design, geometry symbolises order and power. Thus, the unnatural strategy of imposing order onto a disorderly nature, and re-arranging the entire town can be understood as a means of glorifying and making the power of the Farnese family visible. This sense of willing domination and internal exclusiveness inherent in Vignola’s design obstructs any clear understanding of its architectural language. It is seen as an austere and monolithic structure having no sympathy for its setting. The overall design is so out of scale that it is impossible to comprehend or appreciate any of its elements whilst being up close up or standing in the immediate context of the town of Caprarola.

12

Guidoni, E. (1987). Caprarola (Viterbo). Rome: Multigrafica [Atlante storico delle città italiane. Lazio vol.1]

13

Ibid.

14

Castex, J. (2008). Architecture of Italy. London: Greenwood Press, p. 100.

15

Ibid, p.101.

20

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

Fig.8 - Caprarola Town Plan circa 1700. Image produced by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

21

Lemercier could have been motivated by this ambiguity in order to shed some light on the subject. He may have wanted to engage the attention of the villagers of Caprarola or any person who observes the building from a distance, however it is more likely he intended to address his fellow scholars of architecture and of course the owner.

1.2 | The Building seen as an Imposing Structure In his Scenografia, one can see Lemercier’s sympathy for the spectator of the villa at ground level, because he elevates the point of view up to a bird’s eye perspective. This is no doubt a reaction to the poor subject of approach.

The entrance situated on the main facade of the palace facing the village is arrived at by a narrow and restricted street of Diritta (see Fig.8 and Fig.9).

As a visitor, the Villa Farnese is the only attraction in Caprarola apart from the beauty of the rugged and surprisingly steep landscape. Therefore, the visitor’s intention is to go straight up to the Renaissance building. The line of sight of the palace is uninterrupted right from the bottom of the steep Via Diritta. However, it is similar to looking through a pinhole, as only a small portion of the elevation is visible. Once you manage to stumble all the way to the top, where the street opens into something akin to a square with multiple levels, you are surprised by the immensity of the structure and over elaboration of the grand entrance which you still have to walk up. This is a coup de theatre, emphasised by the difference in scale between what you have come from and what you have arrived at. Furthermore, there are many ascending levels with many staircases. Vignola’s precise formal language in the entrance facade is lost in the glamour of his sudden coup de theatre.

Therefore a communication tool is needed to clear these ambiguities. Lemercier needed to make the viewer step back from the villa which required him to choose a bird’s eye perspective view (see Fig.10). The choice of the bird’s eye perspective can also be justified in order to understand the massing of the building. The building’s shape is a regular five sided pentagon extrusion. However it is deceptive and can lead to confusions. Depending from which viewpoint you look from, it is only possible to see more than two facades at specific locations, which correspond to being exactly in front of the facades. Most of the time the viewer can only see two facades, giving the impression that the villa is a skewed cube causing inadequate understanding of the villa (see Fig.11) which can bee seen in earlier representations of the Villa. Therefore it is no surprise that Lemercier chose to set the bird’s eye perspective dead on the centre of the main facade. It is a view that is never seen in reality, enabling us to see the design in its totality.

22

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

Fig.9 - Panoramic photo of the square in front of the Villa Farnese (coup de theatre). Photo by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Fig.10 - Aerial view of the Villa Farnese facing the main facade which is approached by the street of Via Diriva.

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

23

Lemercier does not stop here, as his drawing further shows the relationship between the inside and the outside through a three dimensional section cut, or rather an omission of the building. It is as if he places the Villa Farnese high on an inspection table and performs a dissection. By doing this, he illustrates Vignola’s stroke of genius whilst working with the section. When the architect was commissioned to transform the unfinished “rocca” fortress into an elegant residence, he was limited by the pentagonal plan which was already determined. As Collin Rowe points out, Vignola could only manipulate the general idea of the pentagon in terms of its section. Therefore, he articulates the internal courtyard in two unique ways. First of all, he decides on a circular plan offset from the pentagon, which was a very unique move at the time of the Renaissance. Secondly, the walls of the courtyard no longer rise to the height of the walls of the pentagon16. The design is conceived in theatrical terms, forcing the observer to be surprised and deceived. Vignola dislocates the section, creating a distortion in terms of perception of the building: what you see on the outside no longer corresponds with what you find within. Furthermore, Vignola’s design for the offset walls of the courtyard has become a topic for an anatomical dissection, where layers are gradually subtracted and cut away. The result is a building that is simultaneously visually impermeable from the outside and a visually permeable lattice-like wall treatment from inside the courtyard.17 It is obvious that Lemercier was highly aware that in order to communicate effectively a true understanding of the building, it is essential to reveal the relationship between the inside and the outside. Consequently, his engraving of 1608 reveals the section of the building in three dimensions by using a technique that involves slicing the building and removing the cut section, akin to removing a slice from a cake. It is not impossible that he might have been influenced by the fervent vocation of Renaissance anatomists, which aims to discover the inner hidden truths of the human body. Thus Lemercier’s drawing combines a bird’s eye perspective view and a sectional perspective in order to broadcast the innovation in the design of the section of the Villa Farnese and the articulation of its central courtyard. Through his drawing he demonstrates that what lies on the outside is not what lies on the inside.

1.3 | Graphic Language of Drawings in Renaissance At this point, it is necessary to provide a brief explanation of cutaway drawings, which are, in the simplest terms, three dimensional graphic repre16 Rowe, C. And Satkowski, L, (2002). Italian Architecture of the 16th century. Princeton: Architectural Press, p.219.

17

Ibid, p.220.

24

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

3 Facades Visible

1

2

3

0°

2 Facades Visible

1

2

10°

2 Facades Visible

1

2

1

2

60°

3 Facades Visible

72°

3

Fig.11 - Villa Farnese facade analysis. The difficulty in reading the pentagonal shape of the Villa resides in the fact that only five vantage points (every 72°) allow the viewer to see the building with 3 facades.

The rest of the time, the building looks like a skewed cube. Diagrams produced by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

25

sentations allowing the viewer to have a look inside a solid opaque object.

Diepstraten explains that in order to reveal the inside of the object, parts of the outside are simply removed which produces a visual appearance as if someone had cut out a piece of it. Subsequently, cutaway illustrations avoid ambiguities with respect to spatial ordering, provide a sharp contrast between foreground and background objects, and facilitate a good understanding of spatial ordering18. Lemercier’s “revealing” drawing takes advantage of the building’s regular pentagonal structure, and shows in a single projection a fifth of its ground floor plan, half of the elevation and half of the section. Additionally, the drawing is seen from a high point of view, which allows us to see the interior roofs, the curvature of the circular courtyard and the general organization of the building. On further inspection Lemercier uses a frontal perspective, with the point of view placed on the axis of symmetry dividing the façade into two parts, which enhances the value and uniqueness of the pentagon19 and enables the viewer to see the direct relationship between the building and its context: the topography of the rocky hill the building sits on ( see Fig.12), the moat, the landscaped gardens and the front piazza. We can therefore conclude that the Lemercier’s cutaway drawing explains all we need to know for a formal knowledge of the building.

All types of drawing (plan, section, elevation and perspective) are combined into one master drawing with an unbeatable power of description. It would not be fair to say it is the first cutaway drawing to do this, however it was the most articulated drawing of this type to date in the field of architecture.

This new type of drawing which appeared during the Renaissance was used in other fields which required critical research and discovery in the context of the humanist thought. One such field which developed exponentially between the end of the 15th and the end of the 16th century was anatomy and the practice of dissections. It could be argued that a catalyst for its development was Leonardo Da Vinci’s studies of the human skull in 1489, which borrowed three-dimensional drawing techniques from architecture that had never been seen before (see Fig.13). A new technical vocabulary for anatomical drawings was created and Da Vinci’s sketches in plan, section, elevation, and perspectival view marked a great progression in how the body was documented. A new era was born, with artists being able to represent the body more accurately than ever and their works became a central component of scientific anatomy. Masters produced drawings which peeled off or literally cut through the layers of human tissue to gain better understanding of man’s components. With the increase in knowledge, Diepstraten, J., and Weiskopf, D., (2003). Interactive Cutaway Illustrations. Computer Graphics Forum, 2003, September, p.524.

18

Mindeguía, F., M. (2009). Anatomía de un Dibujo: El Palacio de Caprarola de Lemercier. Annali di Architettura, no. 21, p.11.

19

26

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

Fig.12 - Dramatic landscape of the town of Caprarola. Photo by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Fig.13 - Study of a Human Skull. Leonardo Da Vinci, 1489.

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

27

physicians needed the artists to document their dissections whilst artists were able to make a living from drawing. A subsequent advancement of education and learning grew thanks to the collaboration of artists and physicians. In 1543, Andreas Vesalius published De Humani Corporis Fabrica, a comprehensively illustrated book of anatomy displaying graphic representations of dissected bodies in dramatic landscapes. His work dispelled many of the misconceptions that survived from Galen’s theories and marked the next leap in medical knowledge. Using the newly acquired technology of the printing press, the medical ‘truth’ of our internal world was able to spread further afield, throughout intellectual communities and beyond.

Roberts and Tomlinson argue that reproduction of illustrations through the printing press was considerably more effective for conveying complex and precise information as opposed to purely textual material. They argue that: “Even at a time when nomenclature was not standardized, anatomists could confirm, criticize, and modify an illustration, and publish their own, which more correctly portrayed that part of the human body”.20

Therefore, printed illustrations of structures revealed by dissection, in combination with notes, rather than solitary texts, became central to the transmission of anatomical knowledge. Equally it could be argued that Lemercier understood that the best way to explain the complex architectural designs was by cutting them open, and pointing out the structure of things and how they work together. His drawing was so successful that it was copied repeatedly throughout the 17th and 18th century with little modification.

1.4 | Lemercier’s Living Picture Obviously this is not a picture intended for the process of design; it is not to be used for the construction but rather for the popularization: the drawing intends to raise awareness and explain the building to architectural scholars, who are addressed in the medallion placed on the right side: “To all of Architectural scholars. Having seen and measured in minute detail all parts of the Palace of Caprarola, and having considered the Architect’s design in its perfection, I started to wonder what would be a worthy and dignified way to draw it, while keeping the original iconography and the Palace’s scenery in mind in order to show the true excellence and beauty of such accomplished architecture. Having measured all the parts of the original drawings and the building, I have written descriptions as notes which have been labelled and correspond to letters and numbers situated Roberts, K., B., and Tomlinson J., D., W., (1992). The Fabric of the Body: European Traditions of Anatomical Illustration. Oxford: University Press, p.618.

20

28

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

Fig.14 - Detail of anotation letters on the Scenografic View of the Caprarola Palace. Lemercier, J., 1608.

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

29

on the drawing itself, in order to make it easier for anyone to understand the theory of this new work of art. I have worked tirelessly in order to make the understanding of the palace as easy as possible to satisfy all students of architecture. [...]” 21

Thus, Jacques Lemercier’s intention is clear from the start. He wants to communicate the complexity and magnificence of the villa and he attempts this by establishing his own system of notes on the side which are labelled on the actual drawing. This is very similar to the anatomical drawings of Vesalius who wanted to refine the “jargon of anatomy” and create a universal nomenclature so that anatomists from all over the world could unambiguously know the names of identified structures.22 Lemercier felt compelled to adopt a system rarely used in the field of architecture in order to popularise the understanding of the Villa Farnese. He indicates the dislocated profile of the section with the letter A, B for ground and first floor circulation loggias, C for Service rooms, D for the common rooms coming out over the circular loggia, E for guttering, and so on (see Fig.14). Most of the elements Lemercier points out are situated in the section cut. The viewer is a witness to the result of a dissection of a building and its findings. Similarly to anatomical illustration, Lemercier’s masterpiece lends itself to what Martin Kemp calls the “rhetoric of reality”. This corresponds to the use of recognisable visual hints of uncompromising naturalism in order to convince the viewer that the subject of the representation is portrayed from (real) life. Kemp argues that: “[...] these visual signals were frequently accompanied by texts or captions that emphasized the concrete situations and procedures by which the representations were generated and by visual references to the act of dissection itself, through such devices as the display of tools”.23

Lemercier does not display tools suggesting that the building was actually dissected, however he presents a rigid sequential description of the section cut and the relationship between each floor plan as if he is going deeper into the flesh of the building and removing parts as he is describing them in order for the viewer to realise what he is looking at.

This system of labelling can be seen in a rare set of drawings Lemercier produced (most likely later on in his career) for the survey of a building called “Maison de Plaisance” 24 (see Fig.15-18). It might be useful to compare these Jacques Lemercier, Scenografia of the Villa Farnese, 1608. found in: Kings’s Topographical Collection, LXXX., 59-80, described with the title “Pianta e due vedute del Palazzo di Caprarola, da F. Villamaena”, British Library.

21

Roberts, K., B., and Tomlinson J., D., W., (1992). The Fabric of the Body: European Traditions of Anatomical Illustration. Oxford: University Press, p.49.

22

Kemp in Baigrie, B., S, (1996). Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science. Toronto: University Press, p.43.

23

24

Drawings found in “Miscellanea di archittetura Vol II” in the Academia di San Luca, Rome.

30

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

Fig.15 - View of the Maison de Plaisance. Lemercier, (date unknown).

Fig.16 - Section of the Maison de Plaisance. Lemercier, (date unknown).

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

31

drawings with the drawing we are studying in this essay. Lemercier explains in simple terms the overall design of the private residence of Plaisance in the form of a note located on a separate page, where he has notes describing each drawing of this small collection. He states that: “I carried out this project with the help of Mr. MCV’s program, and the information I acquired concerning the plot located in Paris, near the Fire Station. We arrive sheltered in this house thanks to the hall A, on the ground floor in which is a staircase has two ramps, right and left, leading to the circulation spaces D and to the stables E. The other rooms shown on the same floor plan corresponds to the kitchens, offices, bathrooms, basements and wood chamber. The plan at the level of the terraces shows the guest rooms, laundry room and Storage space for furniture. The plan of the upper floor is divided in different spaces, including, dining room, closets, bedrooms, etc.. All spaces communicate in the middle of the building at a very large meeting room which is lit up the top.25

From this description, it is clear that he has used a labelling system requiring the user look back and forth at the description of the drawing, and the plans where the alphabetical labels are found. The plans also include the traditional section line which follows the cut of the building indicated by the label “section on the line of A-B”. The viewer thus needs to compare plans and sections in order to understand the structure of the building. Similarly to Vesalius’s dissection plates, the drawings are teaching aids showing complex structures which can be taken in at a glance and at the same time can be investigated by closer scrutiny because there is sufficient details and notes to do so. The images which include perspective, section and plan, correspond to the primary object of the viewer’s attention, while words of explication serve to illuminate details that might not be apparent at first glance. By describing how the building is organised, the drawings serve as a replacement for an anatomical dissection. We can conclude that Lemercier developed these techniques and combined them for his master cutaway drawing of the Villa Farnese in order to make the information of the building even more accessible to the reader.

By comparing the set of drawings of the Maison de Plaisance and the all encompassing cutaway of the Villa Farnese, we can also draw some similarities in the way it is inhabited. The Perspective of the Maison de Plaisance is animated with riders on horses in motion moving towards the stables.

Along with the presence of detailed vegetation, Lemercier’s Scenografia of 1608 is inhabited in the same way. People are displayed walking in the landscaped gardens and riding horses, on two occasions riding horses down Lemercier, J. Date Unknown. Miscellanea di archittetura Vol II, Planche VI (Academia di San Luca), translated from French to English by author, Daniel Reynolds.

25

32

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

Fig.17 - Ground Floor Plan of the Maison de Plaisance. Lemercier, (date unknown).

Fig.18 - Lower and Upper Floor Plans of Maison de Plaisance. Lemercier, (date unknown).

Chapter One: The Image of the Building

33

staircases demonstrating their grand width. The inhabitation of these drawings represents the blood of the architectural body, which makes it a living structure. Furthermore, in the case of the cutaway of the Villa Farnese, Lemercier chose to cut the building at its most interesting part. He reveals the location of the principal spiral staircase which serves the entire building, acting as the main artery distributing the inhabitants across the design. Thus, Lemercier’s intention was to convey an architectural environment that is living and frozen motion, as a two dimensional image. The drawing tries to show the building as a perfect work of art, rather than as an actual construction. Therefore, the drawing is not a cold description but a beautiful object that tries to convince the viewer with its geometrical clarity and symmetry of the organization.

34

35

| Chapter Two The Model of the Building

36

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

Fig.19 - Model of the Universe from Mysterium Cosmographicum. Kepler, J., 1595.

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

37

2.1 | The World Seen as a Unified Whole Composed of Interconnected Components Avihu Zakai states that in the 16th and 17th century experience and experiment gradually became the principle method for understanding the world.

Knowledge gained from text no longer exclusively determined the understanding of the world of nature.26 Therefore scientists and scholars started to formulate a new way of observing the world they lived in. One such scholar was Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), an astronomer who based his ground breaking astronomical models on empirical observation. In his first major work of 1595 entitled “Mysterium Cosmographicum”, translated as “Cosmographic Mystery”, he believed he had revealed God’s geometrical plan for the universe. Much of Kepler’s enthusiasm for the Copernican system stemmed from his theological convictions about the connection between the physical and the spiritual; the universe itself was an image of God, with the Sun corresponding to the Father, the stellar sphere to the Son, and the intervening space between to the Holy Spirit.27 As Klein argues, he later expanded on the hidden harmony of the world where he attempted to uncover the secrets of the universe through an ambitious synthesis of geometry, music, astrology, and astronomy.28 Kepler states in 1605, only two years prior to Lemercier undertaking of the drawing for the Villa Farnese, that: “My aim is to show that the heavenly machine is not a kind of divine, live being, but a kind of clockwork,...insofar as nearly all the manifold motions are caused by a most simple, magnetic, and material force, just as all motions of the clock are caused by a simple weight. And I also show how these physical causes are to be given numerical and geometrical expression.”29

We can observe that Kepler’s sees the world as unified whole where everything is related and everything converges. Kepler’s laws of planetary motion were the first modern “laws of nature” dealing with natural phenomena, formulated in mathematical terms, and proposing universal relations that regulate particular phenomena. In “Mysterium Cosmographicum”, the distances of the planetary orbits from the sun turn out to be a function of the sequence of the five nested polygons (see Fig.19). Campbell states that Kepler’s Model of the universe encapsulates notions of neatness and homology that are Zakai, A., (2010). Jonathan Edwards’s Philosophy of Nature: The Re-enchantment of the World in the Age of Scientific Reasoning. London: T&T Clark, p. 68.

26

Barker, P., and Goldstein., B., R., (2001). Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy. Osiris, Vol. 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions, p.112.

27

28

Klein, E., (1999). The Quest for Unity: The Adventure of Physics. Oxford: University Press, p.18.

Kepler, “Letter to J.G Herwart von Hohenburg”, 16 Febuary 1605, as quoted in Koestler, A., (1968). The Sleepwalkers: A history of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London: Hutchinson, p.331.

29

38

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

Fig.20 - Michelangelo’s large sectional for his design of the Dome of St Peters. The cut reveals that the dome is made up of two distinctive layers. What you see on the inside is not what you see on the outside.

Fig.21 - Michelangelo’s large sectional for his design of the Dome of St Peters. Photo taken at the Vatican Museum by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

39

aesthetic only, though certainly rational.30 It is thus apparent that the world was perceived to have a poetic structure, a view shared by many precursory scholars in a multitude of intellectual fields. Concerning dissection, there were metaphysical reasons for interest in the human body as Roberts and Tomlinson argue that: “The microcosms of the body represented analogously the macrocosm of the universe – and as the heavens were shown to have a degree of order, so order, proportion, and measure were looked for in human beings, and such study came to be a central concern for many inquiring minds.”31

It is apparent that all intellectual pursuits align themselves on Kepler’s logic.

In continuation with the idea that man was the centre of the natural world, he also becomes a sort of building block that can be used to construct perfectly proportioned buildings and other artistic endeavours.32 Classical virtues such as harmonious proportion, clarity of purpose, and rationality soon began to make an impression on architecture. Architects of the Renaissance such as Brunelleschi believed that the beauty of a building depended on its harmonious proportion, which was created by the mutual order of each component part attuned to one another according to mathematical laws.33 In this light, Vignola’s geometrical obsession which dictates the design of the Villa Farnese mentioned previously, can thus be understood as the means of designing a building which fits within the universe as a unified whole. The Villa becomes a nested model which obeys the same rules as Kepler’s model of the universe. Lemercier’s drawing is then an instrument of knowledge revealing a unified model of the Villa Farnese where everything fits perfectly together, which is characteristic of Renaissance logic, and in this case, embodied within an architectural model.

2.2 | The Role of the Architectural Model in the Renaissance The role of the architectural model became very important in the Renaissance and coincided with the concern for spatial complexity that developed towards the 17th century. As Tolnay states, models were devised to reveal elaborate internal systems. For example, by 1561 Michelangelo had a large sectional model made of his dome design for St. Peter’s which could be Campbell, M.,B., (1999). Wonder & Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe. New York: Cornell University Press, p.117.

30

Roberts, K., B., and Tomlinson J., D., W., (1992). The Fabric of the Body: European Traditions of Anatomical Illustration. Oxford: University Press, p.34.

31

Thompson, B., (1996). Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation. Cambridge: W.B. Eerdmans, p.11.

32

33

Ibid, p.11.

40

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

Fig.22 - “The Leg Section”. Michelangelo, c.1485-1490.

Fig.23 - Les Perspecteurs. Bosse, A., 1648.

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

41

pulled apart in order to show his design through the section34 (see Fig.20 and Fig.21). The Italian Renaissance gave new prominence to models with the emergence of the architect as the coordinator of building operations as well as the exclusive designer. Wilton-Ely states that Brunelleschi used a variety of models for different functions in order to create his dome for the Cathedral of Florence, ranging from the presentation model that helped him to win the competition, to the many improvised ones used for instructing technical details to workmen.35 These models are what Wilton-Ely calls “post factum”36, as they depict something intangible that has not happened yet. The design has not been constructed yet but it is represented in the material world in three dimensions. It is the physical manifestation in the real world of something not real, showing itself in the best light possible. To sum up, the post factum model is a material concretisation of a possible outcome that is idealised and is realised only afterwards. Furthermore, it has been argued that Michelangelo was the first designer to employ models extensively in the early stages of formal composition, and by developing sculptural considerations, he introduced the role of the sectional model where external and internal spaces could be evaluated and developed simultaneously.37 Upon the first glance of a sectional model, it is possible that the viewer would perceive it as if it was the victim of a surgical intervention much like the slices through parts of the body and organs depicted in Leonardo Da Vinci’s Sketches38 (see Fig.22). However it was not achieved by constructing the entire design then physically slicing it open. It is constructed with a precise omission in mind.

Therefore, in the realisation of sectional models, there is another distortion with the “potential reality” of its construction, as the building represented in the model will not be constructed as it is, with an open section-cut. In these terms Lemercier’s drawing shows such a sectional model. It is not the representation of the real thing and it is not quite a post factum model, as the model was made after the realisation of the building. However, it reinforces the idea of showing the building in the best possible light because Lemercier presents an image of something which cannot be seen in reality.

It is undeniable that Lemercier was influenced by the sectional model that was produced for the church of S.Giovani dei Fiorentini in Rome, as it is recorded in an engraving by the young architectural scholar himself in 1607, one year before his Scenografia of the Villa Farnese. Therefore, we can be 34

Tolnay, C. D., (1975). Michelangelo. Princeton: University Press, p.33.

35

Wilton-Ely, J., (1967). The Architectural Model. Architectural Review: Vol 142, p.27.

36

Ibid, p.28.

37

Ibid, p.29

Leonardo’s use of a sectional mode of representation was unprecedented. In his sectional sketch entitled “Leg Section”, most of the muscles of the upper leg can be identified in position, implying that Leonardo did indeed see a human leg sawn through in this manner. It would be impossible to infer this arrangement from surface examination or animal material.

38

42

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

Fig.24 - Michelangelo presenting the model for the completion of St Peter’s to Pope Pius IV. Cresti, D., 1618.

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

43

positive that in 1608, Lemercier understood the value of models, particularly sectional models introduced by Michelangelo.

The underlying theory shared by architectural scholars of the time was that a platonic conception of truth was seen through sections. Architectural sections were not commonly used before the sixteenth century, just as anatomy rarely involved the actual dissection of cadavers. Perez-Gomez argues that the truth of perception brought along by perspective is a section through the Euclidean cone of vision39 (see fig.23). Thus the Renaissance emphasized the importance of sections in architectural representation. Perez-Gomez clearly agrees that intellectuals of the Renaissance practiced magnification and dissection as a road towards knowledge. The use of sectional models enabled architects to show unseen phenomenon. We can see such phenomenon in Michelangelo’s sectional model for the Dome of the Cathedral of St Peters in Romev mentioned previously, which reveals two semi-spherical layers offset from one another. The centrifugal forces radiate from the centre of the dome into all eight spaces underneath on the external layer and flow back again to the top through the inner layer. Lemercier’s drawing of the Villa Farnese shows the same type of model, where we can see the circulation of forces pulling down onto the perimeter of the pentagon and columns arrayed in a circular fashion around the central courtyard. This conceptual model of the Villa Farnese is a physical representation of a building and yet it is almost a building in itself as it tries to trick the viewer into thinking that what you see is the reality of the Villa Farnese. This type of model historically served as design tool, as a means of persuading patrons to approve designs (see Fig.24), and for the purpose of showing workmen the process of construction. In the case of Lemercier’s work, the conceptual model helps the viewer towards understanding the building as a unified working system.

2.3 | The Concept of “Architectural Model” In an etymological search, it is seen that the word model is “borrowed from the Middle French word modèle, from Italian modello, from Latin modellus. Modellus is a diminutive of the Latin modulus, which signifies the word measure.”40 As observed, modelling is highly associated with measuring. As Smith defines it, the model may also offer a description of a system that accounts for all its known properties.41 In this sense, the underlying theory that Lemercier’s drawing conveys a conceptual model encapsulating all the Perez-Gomez, A., and Pelletier, L., (1997). Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, p.143.

39

Smith, A., (2004). Architectural Model as Machine: A new view of models from antiquity to the present day.

Oxford: Architectural Press, p.61.

40

41

Ibid, p.62.

44

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

Fig.25 - Scenographic drawing of the noble palace of Caprarola (Copy of Lemercier’s Original).

Villamena, F., 1617.

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

45

information relevant to a cohesive system, is firstly identified in Lemercier’s commentary of the drawing when he describes observing and measuring in minute detail all parts of the Palace of Caprarola. Smith further argues that the architectural model simply refers to the physical or virtual representation of a design idea and can be defined as a defining mechanism for understanding and demonstrating architectural concepts.42 Consequently, if we consider that Lemercier’s drawing describes the Villa Farnese as a total and complete entity which belongs to a greater system, that is to say the universe in Kepler’s terms, we can distinguish the engraving as a conceptual model, which is no longer two dimensional. Instead, it presents many layers of information which are all governed by the same laws of unity. Furthermore, the understanding of architectural systems, through an orthographic set of drawings requires professional training and extensive familiarity.43 In contrast, scale models are experienced to be much more communicative, easy and fast to interpret by both designer and viewer. Therefore, a heightened potential for communication is observed through the conceptual model, especially in Lemercier’s case where he is decidedly engaging the attention of architectural scholars with complex architectural systems.

2.4 | Lemercier’s Model of the Villa Farnese The quality of Lemercier’s engraving is evidenced by the copies that were made of it, as well as from the extent of its dissemination44. The first of these copies was made in 1617 by the engraver Francesco Villamena in an annex to the works of Vignola (see fig.25). This copy made Lemercier’s drawing widely known. Villamena used Lemercier’s engraving as a model, but he did not copy it exactly. He copied the composition and part of the text that described the building, but he changed the framing, showing only the building.

With this reduction, Villamena ignored the surroundings of the building and showed it as an isolated object. This highlights the most important quality of Lemercier’s drawing, as a tangible piece of information reduced to a physical object, placed in the Caprarola context. If we start to understand the representation of the Villa Farnese as a physical object or better yet a physical or theoretical model, we can further unravel Lemercier’s line of thought and the reasoning of his 17th century humanist contemporaries. The type of model that is theoretically depicted in Lemercier’s engraving of the Villa Farnese Smith, A., (2004). Architectural Model as Machine: A new view of models from antiquity to the present day.

Oxford: Architectural Press, p.vi.

42

Porter, T., and Neale., J., (2000). Architectural Supermodels: Physical Design Simulation. Oxford: Architectural Press, p.2.

43

Mindguia, F., M., 2009. The anatomy of a drawing: the Caprarola Palace (Villa Farnese), by Lemercier Annali di architettura Citation: no. 21, 2009, p. 120.

44

46

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

Fig.26 - Sectional View of the Pantheon. Beatrizet N., 1553.

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

47

has all the intentions of a “post-factum” model. It strives to convince the observer the clarity and ingenuity of the design. However, it differs in that it demonstrates and reproduces the design of a tangible building, one that has been constructed. Reminiscent of the more elaborate examples of Renaissance presentation models, here the building is imagined as a model that is opened up in order to reveal a sectional view of the interiors, the services and the decorative schemes. Lemercier could have chosen to show the section cut as if part of the building was destroyed, showing a jagged cut or a profile of staggered bricks as Nicholas Beatrizet showed in 1553 with his cutaway section of the Pantheon (see fig.26). Instead, the section cut is very precise, as if the omission were a part of the architectural proposition, where people could fall off the edge if they were not vigilant. This increasingly blurs the boundaries between reality and the stance Lemercier took on the Villa Farnese by conceiving it as a model. On further analysing the engraving in terms of a conceptual model, we can see that the profile of the section cut reveals the components of the walls, floors and ceilings, with small connection details of stonework, of facade architrave and internal skirting, and of mouldings. It also shows the components of the spiral staircase. It shows how the steps, the grandiose columns forming its banisters, and its supporting side walls, all fit together. Consequently, Lemercier’s engraving is skilfully created to serve the same purpose as a physical presentation model. It not only shows the inside/outside relationships and general organisation, but it also demonstrates how the building is assembled. The role of the model has been shifted from showing the greatness of a potential project, to showing off the greatness of a built construction. And because the building is in fact real, the model is not necessarily concerned about a “true” representation.

It shows the building as if it was built with part of it open, when this is not the case in real life, as if it was a tidy model which fits perfectly together.

Furthermore, Lemercier’s conceptual model encapsulates the Villa Farnese’s geometrical clarity and order within the humanist world by fixing and making sure the proportions are perfectly in accordance with the original concept of the design. If we look at Vignola’s design, we know in advance that the iconographic meaning shared by all circular courtyards of the Renaissance reveals the concerns and world views of their patrons. In the case of the villa Farnese, the circularity of the courtyard is echoed and enhanced by rounded arches, semicircular columns, decorative ovals, and turned balusters. This serves to highlight a round segment of sky framed by the courtyard, evoking the entire celestial sphere45, which had great meaning in the context of the cosmos. The idea that the building is a representation of the cosmos is Partridge L., (2001). The Farnese Circular Courtyard at Caprarola: God, Geopolitics, Genealogy, and Gender.

The Art Bulletin, Vol. 83, No. 2 (June), p.260.

45

48

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

Fig.27 - Section of the Villa Farnese. Valvassori, G., 1732. The Red circle highlights the fact that the height of the interior courtyard has the same measurement for its inner diameter.

Chapter Two: The Model of the Building

49

supported by the courtyard’s dimensions. The height of the cylinder that forms the interior courtyard has the same measurement for its inner diameter. As Partridge has argued, the courtyard could perfectly accommodate a sphere within its confines46, representing a celestial body which would rotate around the axis formed by the straight approach through the Caprarola village on the Via Diritta (see Fig.27). Furthermore, the plan of the courtyard reveals that it is divided into ten equal parts. It is has been pointed out that the number 10 is the sum of 1, 2, 3, and 4. These whole numbers defined simple ratios defining the musical harmony of the universe and were considered as cosmic numbers.47 Finally, the cosmic significance of the circular courtyard is supported by its placement with a pentagon, itself often a symbol of the universe.48 The complex relationship between the simple geometrical volumes and the meaning behind them is very difficult to decipher in reality when standing outside the building. What Lemercier’s conceptual model does, is to point out the volumetric expressions that reflect the harmony of the celestial body of the building. For instance, the sphere inside the cylinder contained by the extruded polygon cannot be seen in the same way with an orthographic set of drawings. And it is not just a three dimensional cutaway, it is literally a model that encapsulates the Villa Farnese’s geometrical clarity and order within the humanist world by fixing and making sure the proportions are perfectly in accordance with the original concept of the design. The drawing becomes a tangible piece of information that materialises into an object, which aspires to prove that the building is in unity with the new found laws of the universe.

Partridge L., (2001). The Farnese Circular Courtyard at Caprarola: God, Geopolitics, Genealogy, and Gender.

The Art Bulletin, Vol. 83, No. 2 (June), p.260.

46

47

Ibid, p.261.

48

Ibid, p.261.

50

51

| Chapter Three The Image of the Model of the Building

52

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building 3.1 | Foucault’s Renaissance Episteme

In his philosophical thesis entitled “The Order of Things” published in1966, Michel Foucault claims that there was a shift in culture from the Renaissance to the “Classical era” corresponding to the early modernity of the post Renaissance period. The shift had to do with how scholars and thinkers viewed the world. At this point, it is important to understand the notion of episteme.

In Foucault’s terms, the episteme corresponds to a system of understanding or a body of ideas giving shape to the knowledge of a given time. Consequently, all periods of history have possessed specific underlying conditions of truth and sensibility which are shared throughout all intellectual fields such as anatomy, astrology, art and architecture. This is highly relevant in this study if we are to fully understand how Lemercier’s drawing encapsulates the way in which renaissance humanists saw the world.

For Foucault, there were two shifts dividing history in three epistemes: the Renaissance, the classical era, and the modern era. According to the French philosopher, there was an underlying logic to pre-scientific thought that changed in the transition from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Before Foucault’s “shift”, there was a social world where scholars tended to think in a cross-sectional fashion and relied on similarities between things, where representations of things were imprints of reality. After this “shift”, there was a social world where we think of things in a dynamic and evolving fashion49. The main concern has to do with how the process whereby knowledge is attained changed. The primary instrument of knowledge becomes the analysis of resemblances, not their mere recognition. No resemblance is accepted until it is analysed and compared. Consequently, the mind’s essential activity in knowing is no longer the connecting of things but their discrimination. Campbell argues that the primary role is no longer to draw things together on the basis of their resemblances but to separate them on the basis of their differences50. Consequently, each individual idea forms a natural unity, a self enclosed identity, so that relations between particular ideas are external, their identity is not granted in terms of their interactions.51 This is important as it enables us to step back and compare this new line of thought with the previous one of the Renaissance. In Renaissance thought, knowledge of the world was gained through an unending spiral of linked resemblances, each a sign of another. Campbell states that: Foucault, M., (2002). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Routledge, p.187.

49

Gutting, G., (1989). Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Scientific Reason: Science and the History of Reason.

Cambridge: University Press, p.147.

50

51

During, S., (1992). Foucault and Literature: Towards a Genealogy of Writing. London: Routledge, p.104.

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building

53

“The system of the world and the system of knowledge of the world had, accordingly, the same essential structure, that of a complex of interconnected resemblances.

Knowledge meant uncovering the resemblances that linked things to one another in an infinite chain of similitudes. [...] To know meant to interpret, to find a way from the visible marks to what they resembled.52

Consequently, we now understand that the period during which the engraving of the Villa Farnese was completed corresponded to a period in which everything was sought out to be unified. All things, ideas and structures were preconceived to be intrinsically linked and formed part of the same unified system, as opposed to the multitude of systems of the post Renaissance era. A relevant manifestation of the renaissance episteme is the mirroring of the macrocosm by the microcosm. It guarantees that knowledge of a subsystem of the world can be an adequate guide to knowledge of the whole universe. This obviously makes the Renaissance episteme quite naive. As Campbell points out, the resulting conception of knowledge is an essentially incomplete pursuit of an unending chain of similarities, as it arbitrarily limits the extent of our pursuit of similarities.53 This rather romantic view was shared

by Lemercier and his contemporaries: everything in the world was linked together in a chain where things that resembled each other were drawn together to form a complete model. The convenient nature of the drawing of the model of the Villa Farnese is thus revealed by Lemercier’s exposition of its formal geometry, its symmetry and the dramatized rocky landscape that forms its foundations. We have to remind ourselves that during this era things also resembled one another from great distances much like reflections in mirrors. Gutting states: “There are, for example, relations of emulation between the human face and the sky, between man’s intellect and God’s, between the features of the human face (eyes, nose, mouth) and various heavenly bodies”. 54

Consequently, through relations of convenience and emulation, all entities in the world converge towards a unified whole. And this unity is associated with the perfection of God’s creation.

52

Oksala, J., (2005). Foucault on Freedom. Cambridge: University press, p.23.

Gutting, G., (1989). Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Scientific Reason: Science and the History of Reason.

Cambridge: University Press, pp.144-146.

53

54

Ibid, pp.144-146.

54

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building

Fig.28 - Engraving of Michelangelo’s sectional model for the Church of San Giovani dei Fiorentini.

Lemercier, J., 1607.

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building

55

3.2 | Lemercier’s Drawing of Michelangelo’s Model Lemercier made an engraving in 1607 of the church of San Giovanni dei Fiorentini. However it was not a direct representation of the building, it was a representation of Michelangelo’s model showing this substantial device set high for inspection on a trestle-table, complete with the full ground plan displayed (see Fig.28). It might seem a little strange at first that he decided to show the trestle table on which the model sits, as it allows us to be certain that this engraving is a drawing of a sectional model of the church of San Giovanni. Lemercier could have omitted the plan under the model and the trestle table, shifting the nature of the image from the representation of a working model on an apparent construction site, to a cutaway image of the building. However he did not do this, which means that we are not dealing with a representation of a building, but the representation of a model of a building. Key to this drawing is the multi-layered nature of the interpretation the building. Evidently, the signifier is not the signified. An image is not the object it is meant to represent. Therefore, with Lemercier’s drawing of Michelangelo’s model, we can see the layers of distinction between what is represented, the representation itself, and the knowledge it encapsulates.

We can transmit this way of thinking to the case of the “Scenografia” of the Villa Farnese. In simple terms, the Villa is a real entity in the world, and the image is evidently a representation of it. This representation communicates Lemercier’s interpretation of the building. It exists in the virtual model he shows through his cutaway. Therefore, we can see that Lemercier views Michelangelo’s model for the church of San Giovanni as a conceptual model that unifies the overall design together. One manifestation of this is the invisible centrifugal forces that are in play through the structure of the church.

Concerning this phenomenon, Tolnay states that: “Seen from an imaginary point in the centre under the cupola, the forces would seem to rise through the ribs along the walls and the cupola up to the lantern. To get some idea of this effect, we must consult Le Mercier’s 1607 etching representing the wooden model of the church in cross-section.”55

It is thus Lemercier’s drawing of the model that demonstrates the mechanism of the centrifugal forces. The drawing forces a particular view of the model which is different to a free observation of a model. The view point here is chosen and the spectator is directed towards what to look at. Similarly Dutch still life artisits of the seventeenth century forced the viewer to acknowledge what was behind the surfaces of things. Only a few decades after the 55

Tolnay, C. D., (1975). Michelangelo. Princeton: University Press, p.151.

56

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building

Fig.29 - Still Life, Willem Claesz Heda, 1634.

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building

57

creation of Lemercier’s drawing, still life artists would open up objects in order to reveal what they were made of, or what they were composed of beneath the surface. Svetlana Alpers argues that the spectator is offered up the inside, as well as the outer view56. The Dutch artists’ intention was to offer new and concrete knowledge of our common world57. During this period, art was still influenced by direct knowledge emanating from anatomical studies and dissections. In Willem Claesz Heda’s still life painting of 1634 (see Fig.29), almost all the objects in the scene are opened up for us to look inside. The lemon is peeled away revealing its flesh, the oyster is wide open presenting which parts of it are edible and the glass goblet is broken showing its jagged edges. Everything exposes multiple surfaces in order to be excessively present to the eye58. This obsession concerning the revealing qualities of art yearns to have the same effect that a dissection has on a spectator. The experience aims to be a visual shock which is most likely to be remembered.

This phenomenon can be characterised by the phrase “seeing is believing”.

In addition, the fact that everything exposes multiple surfaces is a trick that leads us to believe in the mastery of the artist depicting the drawing. If he can produce any cut through any position of the subject matter, then he must clearly understand the subject in its totality. It is akin to cutting through the conceptual model, which can tell the entire story of its organisation. On the matter of dissection, Leonardo states that: “The true knowledge of the shape of any body will be arrived at by seeing it from different aspects. Consequently in order to convey a notion of the true shape of any limb [...] cutting them in half and showing the hollow of each of them, one being full of marrow the other spongy or empty or solid”. 59

Da Vinci thus shows us that the intention during the renaissance episteme is to have full mastery of the subjects of study by being able to access its full set of information. In this case, it should be possible to produce any view, and any section. This reflects the three dimensionality of the conceptual model where everything we need to know is condensed into a unified whole.

3.3 | The Act of Cutting: Lemercier Seen as a Hero It has been argued that by revealing the miracles of bodily form and function 56

Alpers, S., (1983). The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, p.90.

Saunders, J.B and O’Malley, (1973). Illustrations from the Works of Andreas Vesalius of Brussels. Cleveland: World Publishing Company, p.91.

57

58

Alpers, S., (1983). The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, p.90.

Roberts, K., B., and Tomlinson J., D., W., (1992). The Fabric of the Body: European Traditions of Anatomical Illustration. Oxford: University Press, p.106.

59

58

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building

through magnificent representations, Vesalius paid open homage to God as the supreme edifice in the created world. In his engravings depicting scenes straight from the dissection room, Vesalius is portrayed as a conscious hero whose task it is to measure the divine symmetry of the human body provided

by God60. In exactly the same way Lemercier considers himself as a great divulger of truth and beauty through his drawing of the conceptual model of the Villa Farnese. This is evident in the statement on the drawing when he addresses all architectural scholars. In addition, it is as if Caprarola is the operating table for the Villa Farnese. It raises it up so it can be seen and reveals the most important point on the main facade, corresponding to the grand entrance. Lemercier depicts it as if it is pleading to be cut in order to reveal its inner mysteries that reflect the order of the universe. Vesalius acknowledges the greatness of God’s creation, whereas Lemercier acknowledges the genius of the designer of the Villa Farnese, that is to say Jacopo Borazi Vignola.

Furthermore, in his anatomical illustrations, Vesalius presents organs and body parts that are isolated, but are positioned next to the source of extraction of the body. These drawings are presented precisely like the actual process of dissecting. According to Kemp, they transform the spectator into a “surrogate eyewitness of the dissection”61. Therefore, the act of cutting open the subject of the illustration is as important as the knowledge gained from it. This can be reflected in the symmetry of Lemercier’s Scenografia. On one side you see the cut model of the Villa Farnese, and on the other, you see the full model. This enables the comparison of the full conceptual model and the sectional one. The outside and the inside are next to each other, not only making it easier to understand the building in three dimensions, but it also shows Lemercier’s control over the information of the building. In this logic, it is Lemercier’s task to reveal this nested model with his cutaway drawing, in the same way Kepler does with his telescope when he states: “O telescope, instrument of much knowledge, more precious than any sceptre! Is not he who holds thee in his hand made king and lord of the works if God? (Johannes Kepler, Dioptrice (1611)”62.

Jacques Lemercier’s library shows him as a man of knowledge, a thinker and a scholar.63 His drawing for the villa Farnese was the only cutaway he ever made, and this may be because he was a student of architecture, and Kemp, M., and Wallace, M. (2000). Spectacular Bodies: The Art and Science of the Human Body from Leonardo to Now. London: Hayward Gallery Berkeley, p.23.

60

61

Ibid, p.35.

Kepler, in Campbell, M.,B., (1999). Wonder & Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe. New York: Cornell University Press, p.123.

62

63

Rosenfeld,M., N. (1996). Serlio on Domestic Architecture. New York: Dover Publications, p.121.

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building

59

this drawing is something of a test of competence. He even describes in the dedication to Oduardo Farnese that he had to measure the entire building in order to get it right. Like all intellectual of the time, Lemercier moves towards first hand observation in order to show us the real structure and the unified model of the Villa Farnese, dissecting it apart to demonstrate how it is a reflection of the cosmos. Furthermore, intellectuals such as Kepler, Vesalius and Lemercier shared a common concern: they all wished to represent accurate illustrations to the reader and student, so that their treatise could be used as a pedagogical tool.

3.4 | Idealisation of the building It is impossible to record the appearance of a building or landscape without including the artist’s response to what he sees; this response has all the ambiguities derived from that particular artist’s personality, experience, and place in society. Roberts and Tomlinson state that: “Some anatomical artists have conveyed the apprehensions of the dissecting room, and some have exploited the macabre, even perverse, side of anatomy. In order to exorcize this horror, the dissected figure is often shown standing in a quiet landscape, where all seems indifferent to the figure in agony. Other anatomical illustrations are merely diagrams, removed both from the living and the dead.” 64

In the case of the cutaway for the Villa Farnese, it is halfway between a model and a drawing. Lemercier takes advantage of the graphic resource of drawing shadows cast by sunshine, so as to make the drawing more expressive: it makes the perception of exterior and interior volumes easier, avoiding confusion. However, there lies something strange in the way he casts his shadows in engraving. The part of the building which has been sliced out and omitted is shaded as if it had never been there. The section cut is lit up as if it were hit directly by the sun like all other external faces of the building, whereas in reality, it would be not be open to the elements.

Equally, the inner courtyard is bathed in sunshine, which contradicts what happens in the real world. We can confidently argue that in Lemercier’s mind, one fifth of the ground floor plan is no longer there to impede the courtyard from being exposed to sunshine. The imaginary slice of the building which has been omitted becomes real. The drawing becomes a representation of a scene where the Villa Farnese has been literally dissected. Relationship between the drawing and the building is complex and not straight forward.

Roberts, K., B., and Tomlinson J., D., W., (1992). The Fabric of the Body: European Traditions of Anatomical Illustration. Oxford: University Press, p.625.

64

60

Chapter Three: An Image of a Model of a Building

The building is idealised through the drawing. Something which is unrealisable is being captured. It is not the building that can represented in this way, it is the conceptual model of the building that is dissected. As Smith notes, models have been employed as thinking mechanisms, used as templates for understanding and testing concepts of invisible things in general65. In other words, through the representation of the conceptual model of the Villa Farnese, Lemercier defines what was considered the absolute truth and the work of the divine. It helps towards the greater cause of defining humanity’s search to understand the perceived chaos of nature. Effectively, the drawing shows a neat model, where everything concerning the building, its grounds and approach is very precisely drawn. On the other hand, this sharp model sits on the escapement of a seemingly chaotic mountain, which forms the geological formation of Caprarola. The image of the model can be considered to serve as a thinking mechanism used in an attempt to recreate and explain the concepts of absolute perfection and the ideals of the time which are difficult to ascertain from first hand visiting experience. This representation communicates Lemercier’s interpretation of the building, which is an idealised version and exist in the virtual model he communicates through his cutaway.

Smith, A., (2004). Architectural Model as Machine: A new view of models from antiquity to the present day.

Oxford: Architectural Press, p.5.

65

61

62

63

| Conclusion

64

Conclusion

65

Lemercier was driven to show the building in all its beauty, through a view that is impossible in reality. The building’s sense of willing domination and internal exclusiveness prevented any clear understanding of its architectural language as it is seen as an austere and monolithic structure having no sympathy for its setting. The overall design is so out of scale that it is impossible to comprehend or appreciate any of its elements whilst being up close up or standing in the immediate context of the town of Caprarola. Thus Lemercier’s drawing combines a bird’s eye perspective view and a sectional perspective in order to broadcast the innovation in the design of the section of the Villa Farnese and the articulation of its central courtyard. Through his drawing he demonstrates that what lies on the outside is not what lies on the inside. We have seen that Lemercier understood that the best way to explain the complex architectural designs was by cutting them open, and pointing out the structure of things and how they work together. His intention was to make the information of the building even more accessible to the reader and to convey an architectural environment that is living and frozen motion as a two dimensional image. In knowing the drawing (and therefore knowing the building) the viewer’s perception of the building is completely different. The drawing shows an impossible view or rather a “vision” of the building, with the cut which on the one had is realistic in the way it depicts the building in use, and yet abstract and mechanical in the way it is cut open to form an architectural section. We have seen that this is similar to the way Versalius’ illustrations depicts bodies in life-like poses while at the same time being contrived to expose their inner anatomy. Therefore, Lemercier’s masterpiece changes the way you see the building compared to first time experience.

The drawing tries to show the building as a perfect work of art, rather than as an actual construction. Therefore, the drawing is not a cold description, it becomes a nested model which obeys the same rules as the Kepler’s model of the universe. Lemercier’s engraving is an instrument of knowledge revealing a unified model of the Villa Farnese where everything fits perfectly together, which is characteristic of Renaissance logic. The conceptual model has a heightened potential for communication helping the viewer towards understanding the building as unified working system. It is literally a model that encapsulates the Villa Farnese’s geometrical clarity and order within the humanist world by fixing and making sure the proportions are perfectly in accordance with the original concept of the design. The drawing becomes a tangible piece of information that materializes into an object, which aspires to prove that the building is in unity with the new found laws of the universe.

Consequently, through relations of convenience and emulation, all entities in the world converge towards a unified whole. And this unity is associated with the perfection of God’s creation. The experience aims to be a visual shock

66

Conclusion

which is most likely to be remembered. This phenomenon can be characterized by the phrase “seeing is believing”. This reflects the three dimensionality of the conceptual model where everything we need to know is condensed into a unified whole. In Lemercier’s drawing, everything fits into a nice model of creation which is different to the messy reality of physicality. However, the building is never seen in reality as a unified whole or as a single unit which means it is an idealized representation. This representation communicates Lemercier’s interpretation of the building, which is an idealized version and exists in the virtual model he communicates through his cutaway which can be used as a pedagogical tool in order to demonstrate that the Villa Farnese is a beautiful object that tries to convince the viewer of its geometrical clarity and symmetry, where the microcosm of its intricate details is mirrored in the macrocosm of the cosmos.

The use of the cutaway at that time in the realm of architecture, has given us an insight into this particular moment in history, and the motivation behind the way of drawing. On an epistemological level of discussion, concerning the perceptual procedures and process-related dynamics of design, it is not going too far to regard drawings and other image representations as fixative.

Unlike the dynamism of three-dimensionality, two dimensional representations are obtained by freezing a moment in design, capturing and framing the vision in image. It can be suggested that the whole perception of the final product is foreseen and planned by the producer of the image and the flexibility of the viewer’s interpretation is limited. In the example of the orthographic set, there are conventions of such a standard graphical representation. The orthographic set is composed of plans, sections, elevations, in some cases accompanied by isometric or axonometric projections, and perspective drawings. In contrast, the model is a living image of unlimited possibilities whereas the image is a flat two dimensional representation. But then if the subject of representation of the image is a model, the image becomes a specific interpretation of a model. In this sense, Lemercier’s engraving is an idealised representation of the Villa Farnese, which goes through three layers of distinction between what is represented, the representation itself, and the knowledge it encapsulates: the Renaissance construction in the context of Caprarola, the conceptual model of the building, and the interpretation of this model. In this sense, Jacques Lemercier’s “General Scenografic View” of the Villa Farnese is the image of a model of the building.

In the post Renaissance period, a more technical form of model began to be used as the “teaching model”.66 This model was for instructing technical students and engineers in more complex structural and construc66

Morris, M., (2006). Models: Architecture and the Miniature. London: John Wiley & Sons, p.12.

Conclusion

67

tional conditions67. In the attitude towards modelling, architecture was seen genuinely akin to painting in this period. Therefore architecture became the making of the painting, or the model, in other words the visual representation. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, Gaspard Monge introduced descriptive geometry which can be defined as the projection of three-dimensional figures on the two-dimensional plan through the manipulation of angles, lengths and shape.68 Morrison and Ostwald note that, with this method, the visual representation techniques regained their universal power.69 Perez-Gomez argues that this dramatically shifted the appreciation of representational tools. The original architectural ideas were transformed into universal projections that could then, and only then, be perceived as reductions of buildings, creating the illusion of drawing as a neutral tool that communicates unambiguous information, like scientific prose.70 This is contrasted by the Lemercier’s representation of the Villa Farnese in the Renaissance episteme, which is completely left to interpretation. The drawing is not a neutral tool, it is a biased tool that supports Kepler’s idea of a poetic structure, relying on relationships of convenience, which here extends from the world map to the analogy of body, building and universe. The drawing of the model in the engraving encapsulates a specific idealisation of the Villa Farnese in Caprarola that concurs with the Renaissance Episteme.

67

Morris, M., (2006). Models: Architecture and the Miniature. London: John Wiley & Sons, p.12.

Morrison, T., and Ostwald, M., J., (2006). Shifting Dimensions: The Architectural Model in History. Melbourne: MIT School of Architecture and Design, Modeling Architecture Exhibition Catalogue, May 2006, pp.107-8.

68

69

Ibid, p.108.

Perez-Gomez, A., (1982). Architecture as Drawing. Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 36, No. 2 Winter, 1982, pp.2-7.

70

68

69

| Bibliography

70

Bibliography

Ackerman, J., S., (2002). Origins, Imitation, Conventions.

London: MIT. Alberti, (1485) . De Re Aedificatoria.

Munich: Prestel (re-published 1979).

Alpers, S., (1983). The Art of Describing: Dutch art in the Seventeenth Century.

London: Penguin.

Baigrie, B., S, (1996). Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science.

Toronto: University Press.

Balducci, G., 1910. Il Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola illustrato nella storia e nell’ arte Cinque secoli di vita politica tramandata dal pennello dei fratelli Zuccari.

Rome: Off polygraphy Editr.

Banham, R., (1972). Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.

Barker, P., and Goldstein., B., R., (2001). Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy.

Osiris, Vol. 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions, pp.88-113.

Battisti,E., (1981). Filippo Brunelleschi: The Complete Work.

New York : Rizzoli.

Belt, E., (1962). The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci.

New York: Borden.

Blau, E., Kaufman, E and Evans, R., (1989). Architecture and its Image: four centuries of architectural representation (works from the collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture).

Montreal : Canadian Centre for Architecture.

Bold, J., F., (1993). English Architecture Public & Private: Essays for Kerry Downes.

London: Hambledon Press.

Carrette, J., R., (2000). Foucault and Religion: Spirituality, Corporality and Political Spirituality.

London: Routledge.

Castex, J. (2008). Architecture of Italy.

London: Greenwood Press.

Campbell, M.,B., (1999). Wonder & Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe.

New York: Cornell University Press.

Choisy, A., (1873). L’art de bâtir chez les Romains.

Paris: Ducher.

Bibliography

71

Choisy, A., (1882). Histoire de l’Architecture.

Paris: Slatkine.

Diepstraten, J., and Weiskopf, D., (2003). Interactive Cutaway Illustrations.

Computer Graphics Forum, 2003, September, pp.523-532.

During, S., (1992). Foucault and Literature: Towards a Genealogy of Writing.

London: Routledge.

Evers, B. and Thoenes, C., (2003). Architecture Theory: From the Renaissance to the Present.

London: Taschen.

Ferguson, E.,S., (1992). Engineering and the Mind’s Eye. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Fletcher, B., (1996). A History of Architecture (19th Edition).

Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Foucault, M., (2002). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.

New York: Routledge.

Gady, A., (2005). Jacques Lemercier: Architecte et Ingénieur du Roi. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Gamrath, H., (2007). Farnese: Pomp, Power and Politics in Renaissance Italy.

Rome: L’Erma.

Guidoni, E. (1987). Caprarola (Viterbo).

Rome: Multigrafica [Atlante storico delle città italiane. Lazio vol.1] Gutting, G., (1989). Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Scientific Reason: Science and the History of Reason.

Cambridge: University Press.

Kemp, M., (1990). The Science of Art: Optical Themes in Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat.

London: Yale University Press.

Kemp, M., and Wallace, M. (2000). Spectacular Bodies: The Art and Science of the Human Body from Leonardo to Now. London: Hayward Gallery Berkeley (University of California).

Kemp, M., (2000). Visualisations: The Nature Book of Art and Science.

Oxford: University Press.

Klein, E., (1999). The Quest for Unity: The Adventure of Physics.

Oxford: University Press.

72

Bibliography

Koestler, A., (1968). The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe.

London: Hutchinson.

Labrot, G., (1970). Le Palais Farnese de Caprarola: Essai de Lecture.

Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.

Laurenza, D., (2006). Leonardo’s Machines: Da Vinci’s Inventions Revealed.

London: David & Charles.

Lemercier, J. (Date Unknown). Miscellanea di Archittetura Vol II, Planch VI, [translated from French to English by author, Daniel Reynolds].

Rome: Academia di San Luca.

Lemercier, J., (1608). General Scenographic drawing of the Caprarola Palace.

Copy of the Original, found in the British Library and the Vatican Library.

Leuschner, E., (1999). Francesco Villamena’s Apotheosis of Alessandro Farnese and engraved reproductions of contemporary sculpture around 1600.

Simiolus. VOL 27, part 3, pp.144-167.

Mindeguía, F., M. (2009). Anatomía de un Dibujo: El Palacio de Caprarola de Lemercier.

Annali di Architettura, no. 21.

Morris, M., (2006). Models: Architecture and the Miniature.

London: John Wiley & Sons.

Morrison, T., and Ostwald, M., J., (2006). Shifting Dimensions: The Architectural Model in History.

Melbourne: RMIT School of Architecture and Design, Modeling Architecture Exhibition Catalogue, May 2006.

Olson, D., R., (1996). Modes of Though: Explorations in Culture and Cognition.

Cambridge: University Press.

Oksala, J., (2005). Foucault on Freedom.

Cambridge: University press.

Partridge , L., (2001). The Farnese Circular Courtyard at Caprarola: God, Geopolitics, Genealogy, and Gender.

The Art Bulletin, Vol. 83, No. 2, June, pp.259-293.

Perez-Gomez, A., and Pelletier, L., (1997). Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge.

Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Perez-Gomez, A., (1982). Architecture as Drawing.

Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 36, No. 2 Winter, 1982. pp.2-7.Porter T., and Neale, J., (2000). Architectural Supermodels: Physical Design Simulation.

Oxford: Architectural Press.

Bibliography

73

Rattenbury, K., (2002). This is Not Architecture: Media Constructions.

London: Routledge.

Roberts, K., B., and Tomlinson J., D., W., (1992). The Fabric of the Body: European Traditions of Anatomical Illustration.

Oxford: University Press.

Rowe, C. And Satkowski, L, 2002. Italian Architecture of the 16th century.

Princeton: Architectural Press.

Rosenfeld,M., N. (1996). Serlio on Domestic Architecture.

New York: Dover Publications.

Saunders, J.B and O’Malley., C., D., (1973). Illustrations from the works of Andreas Vesalius of Brussels.

Cleveland: World Publishing Company.

Smith, A., (2004). Architectural Model as Machine: A new view of models from antiquity to the present day.

Oxford: Architectural Press.

Thompson, B., (1996). Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation.

Cambridge : W.B. Eerdmans.

Tolnay, C. D., (1975). Michelangelo.

Princeton: University Press.

Tuttle, R.,J, (2002). Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola.

Milan: Electa.

Vignola, J., B., 1573. Ichnografia generale del palazzo di caprarola dell’ illustriss sig cardinal farnese ( Jacomo Barazzio da Vignola) Inuentore.

London: British Library Wilton-Ely, J., (1967). The Architectural Model.

Architectural Review: vol 142, pp. 27-32.

Zakai, A., (2010). Jonathan Edwards’s Philosophy of Nature: The Re-enchantment of the World in the Age of Scientific Reasoning.

London: T&T Clark.

74

75

| List of Figures Fig.1 - Lemercier, J., (1608). Scenografic View of the Caprarola Palace. Image available from: Tuttle, R.,J, (2002). Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola. Milan: Electa, p.226.

Fig.2 - Vesalius, A., (1553). De Humani Corporis Fabrica front cover. Image available from: Saunders, J.B and O’Malley, (1973). Illustrations from the works of Andreas Vesalius of Brussels, Cleveland: World Publishing Company, p.168.

Fig.3 - Vesalius, A., (1553). Muscle man of De Humani Corporis Fabrica. Image available from: Saunders, J.B and O’Malley, (1973). Illustrations from the works of Andreas Vesalius of Brussels, Cleveland: World Publishing Company, p.197.

Fig.4 - Projection lines of the pentagonal shape of the Villa Farnese. Diagram produced using Adobe Illustrator by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Fig.5 - Layers of distinction between the image of the building, the conceptual model of the building and the image of the conceptual model of the building. Diagram produced using Adobe Illustrator by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Fig.6 - Viewpoint standing in front of the Villa Farnese. Photo by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Fig.7 - Villa Farnese Ground Floor Plan and Landscaping. Image produced using Rhino 4 and Adobe Illustrator by author, Daniel Reynolds (based on Vilamena’s Plan of 1617).

Fig.8 - Caprarola Town Plan circa 1700. Image produced using Rhino 4 and Adobe Illustrator by author, Daniel Reynolds (based on the plan of Guidoni, E. (1987). Caprarola (Viterbo). Rome: Multigrafica [Atlante storico delle città italiane. Lazio vol.1], p.19) Fig.9 - Panoramic photo of the square in front of the Villa Farnese (coup de theatre).

Photo by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Fig.10 - Aerial View of the Villa Farnese. Available at: http://www.vaticanassassins. org/the-pentagon-jesuit-military-fortress-from-spain-to-italy-to-the-american-empire/ [Accessed: 22/12/12].

Fig.11 - Villa Farnese Facade Analysis. Diagrams produced using Rhino 4 and Adobe Illustrator by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Fig.12 - Dramatic landscape of Caprarola. Photo by author, Daniel Reynolds.

Fig.13- Da Vinci, L., (1489). Study of a Human Skull. Image available from: Kemp, M., (2000). Visualisations: the Nature book of art and science, Oxford: University Press, p.20.

76

List of Figures

Fig.14 - Lemercier, J., (1608). Scenografic View of the Caprarola Palace. Image available from: Tuttle, R.,J, (2002). Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola. Milan: Electa, p.226. (Detail of Anotation Letters).

Fig.15 - Lemercier, J. (Date Unknown). View of the Maison de Plaisance. Image from Miscellanea di archittetura Vol II, Planch VI, Rome: Academia di San Luca.

Fig.16 - Lemercier, J. (Date Unknown). Section of the Maison de Plaisance. Image from Miscellanea di archittetura Vol II, Planch VII, Rome: Academia di San Luca.

Fig.17 - Lemercier, J. (Date Unknown). Ground Floor Plan of the Maison de Plaisance.

Image from Miscellanea di archittetura Vol II, Planch VIII, Rome: Academia di San Luca.

Fig.18 - Lemercier, J. (Date Unknown). Lower and Upper Floor Plans of Maison de Plaisance. Image from Miscellanea di archittetura Vol IX, Planch VI, Rome: Academia di San Luca.

Fig.19 - Kepler, J., (1595). Model of the Universe. Image available at: http://www. answers.com/topic/johannes-kepler [Accessed: 22/12/12].

Fig.20 - Michelangelo, (1506). Large sectional for the design of the Dome of St Peters. Image available at: http://archsoc.westphal.drexel.edu/New/ArcSocIISA7.html [Accessed:19/12/12].

Fig.21 - Michelangelo’s large sectional for his design of the Dome of St Peters. Photo taken in the Vatican Museum, by author Daniel Reynolds.

Fig. 22 - Michelangelo, (1485-1490). The Leg Section. Photo of the original sketch taken at the exhibition entitled: “Leonardo da Vinci: Anatomist”,The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, London (Friday, 04 May 2012 to Sunday, 07 October 2012).

Fig.23 - Bosse, A., (1648). Les Perspecteurs. Image available at: [http://images.math. cnrs.fr/Perspective-geometrie-et.html].

Fig.24 - Cresti, D., (1618). Michelangelo presenting the model for the completion of St Peter’s to Pope Pius IV. Image available at: http://www.bridgemanart.com/ asset/503189/Michelangelo-presenting-the-model-for-the-completi?

[Accessed: 19/12/12].

Fig.25 - Villamena, F., (1617). Scenographic drawing of the noble Palace of Caprarola (Copy of Lemercier’s Original). Image from Alcvne opere d’architettvra di Iacomo Barotio da Vignola, Rome: Acadenia di San Luca.

Fig.26 - Beatrizet, N., (1553). Sectional View of the Pantheon. Image available at: http://www.etsavega.net/dibex/Desgodets-e.htm [Accessed: 19/12/12].

Fig.27 - Valvassori, G., (1732). Section of the Villa Farnese. Image available from Tuttle, R.,J, (2002). Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola. Milan: Electa, p.230.

List of Figures

77

Fig.28 - Lemercier, J., (1607). Engraving of Michelangelo’s sectional model for the Church of San Giovani dei Fiorentini. Image available in Bold, J., F., (1993). English Architecture Public & Private: Essays for Kerry Downes, London: Hambledon Press, p. 152.

Fig.29 - Claesz Heda, W., (1634). Still Life. Image Available at: http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/media/36210/Still-Life-oil-on-wood-by-Willem-Claesz-Heda-1634 [Accessed: 22/12/12].

78

79

| Appendix [Images taken during the trip to Caprarola Village in the Summer of 2012]

80

View of Caprarola from the West Ridge

Approach to the Villa on Via Diritta

81

82

View from the Entrance of the Villa Farnese

Dramatic Streetscape of Caprarola

83

84

Fresco Depicting the Approach of the Villa Farnese

Ceiling of the “Sala del Mappamondo�

85

86

Villa Farnese Central Courtyard

Fountain in the Landscaped Gardens of the Villa

87

88

89

[Daniel Georges Reynolds]