Talk:Architectural style
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 16 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blackurbanist.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Full text online sources for expansion
[edit]Crook, J Mordaunt. The Consequences of the Picturesque. In: The dilemma of Style - Architectural Ideas from the Picturesque to the Post-Modern. The University of Chicago Press 1987.
Correct place for Mannerism?
[edit]I think the Mannerism part should be omitted from this article.--Rochelimit (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, seems out of place Malus Catulus (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Definition
[edit]The definition given is very confusing, as it does not help understanding: "architectural style is a set of characteristics and features that make a building or structure notable or historically identifiable". Why is the style about one building? Usually it helps putting many buildings together into a group. Cf. widely quoted English-language definition "A definite type of architecture distinguished by special characteristics" (attributed to different sources, mostly AED).
There is also an big range of meanings of "style" between a very narrow, individual definition (e.g., "architectural style of Le Corbusier"), and a broad generic sense (Greek Revival architecture): the first, by definition, cannot be defined with any precision (we do not know "what would Le Corbusier do?" in a particular case, so his style is "defined" by a list of structures), while the latter can be (and is) reasonably formalized (this example is borrowed from a not very authoritative "Style in Architecture: A Defense of Formalism" by Saul Fisher), we do not need an exhaustive list in order to classify buildings (at least in the I know it when I see it fashion). Викидим (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to the one based on the "American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia". Викидим (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, that seems ok, but "Why is the style about one building?" is just a problem with your English, I'm afraid. You might find Style (visual arts) useful. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- English is indeed not my native language, but I do not see how the old definition could be interpreted to define a group of buildings (say, Gothic) as opposed to another group (say, Romanesque). Style is a set of common characteristics across some subset of buildings. Style (visual arts) definition is clear and totally agreeable: ... distinctive manner which permits the grouping of works into related categories" or "... any distinctive, and therefore recognizable, way in which an act is performed or an artifact made or ought to be performed and made" (underlining is mine) - essentially, the first option explicitly defines style as a group, the second one defines the style as a set of rules to fit the new work of art into the group. Since in the second case a group needs to pre-exist (in order to set the rules), to me both definitions are equivalent (when I will have time, I might add more of the second option into the "Practical aspects", where I try to deal with a style as a guideline for the future construction). In the old definition "a" building could have been notable for its features on its own. This is not wrong, but to me it is an alternative way to define the art history (without styles, but as a sequence of breadcrumbs of important works). Compare the words by Pevsner (that I have added to the article), "A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture". The system of styles, on the contrary, allows one to classify the sheds, too (like taxonomy allows to group all cats together, even though some domestic cats are not that interesting). Викидим (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly! Pevsner doesn't mean a particular bike shed, he means any bike shed. I don't know the grammatical terms for this, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The common-sense black-and-white definition of style (reality is gray, but for brevity this should do) should be able to place "a" building into "the" group. Yes, "a" means "any one" in this construct, but the group ought to be defined based on many buildings, otherwise the purpose of style concept (reduction of noise, averaging) becomes pointless. Now I understand your comment, but my original statement about "one" building was not about the article "a", but about the absence of the "group".
- The old definition did not mention any group of buildings at all: "architectural style is a set of characteristics ... that make a building ... notable or ...". Obvious issue is that under this definition any notable building obviously forms its own "style". For example, Eiffel tower can form many styles (with characteristics like "tall tower" and "made of steel"). This is not a bad idea per se: as I have already stated, many architects prefer the history to be told not in terms of styles, but as a sequence of influential buildings. However, this style-less approach (that can easily be found in the books on the history of architecture, and can be convenient to describe the current state of affairs) IMHO cannot be used as a definition here. Викидим (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly! Pevsner doesn't mean a particular bike shed, he means any bike shed. I don't know the grammatical terms for this, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- English is indeed not my native language, but I do not see how the old definition could be interpreted to define a group of buildings (say, Gothic) as opposed to another group (say, Romanesque). Style is a set of common characteristics across some subset of buildings. Style (visual arts) definition is clear and totally agreeable: ... distinctive manner which permits the grouping of works into related categories" or "... any distinctive, and therefore recognizable, way in which an act is performed or an artifact made or ought to be performed and made" (underlining is mine) - essentially, the first option explicitly defines style as a group, the second one defines the style as a set of rules to fit the new work of art into the group. Since in the second case a group needs to pre-exist (in order to set the rules), to me both definitions are equivalent (when I will have time, I might add more of the second option into the "Practical aspects", where I try to deal with a style as a guideline for the future construction). In the old definition "a" building could have been notable for its features on its own. This is not wrong, but to me it is an alternative way to define the art history (without styles, but as a sequence of breadcrumbs of important works). Compare the words by Pevsner (that I have added to the article), "A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture". The system of styles, on the contrary, allows one to classify the sheds, too (like taxonomy allows to group all cats together, even though some domestic cats are not that interesting). Викидим (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, that seems ok, but "Why is the style about one building?" is just a problem with your English, I'm afraid. You might find Style (visual arts) useful. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)