Contrasting Architectural Philosophies: Andrea Palladio and Adolf Loos Through the Lens of Ornamentation, Aesthetic, and Techniques

Through the eyes of ornamentation, aesthetic, techniques, this research investigates the contrasting architectural philosophies of Andrea Palladio ( 1508 -1580 ) and Adolf Loos ( 1870 - 1933 ) . Even though they were 4 centuries apart they builders represent opposing viewpoints that had a significant impact on how each time period developed. Loos who despised ornamentation at the start of the modernist movement, is known for saying that ornament is crime. Palladio\u27s Italian Renaissance development of Classical ornamentation was in complete contrast to Loos\u27s practical and stern aesthetics. Palladio used elaborate carved elements, columns, and pediments into his designs. Influenced extensively from the architectural style of the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Stylistically Loos started a new minimalist way which coincided with his Raumplan concept of spatial planning, while Palladio revived and reinterpreted Classical orders and proportions. Loose dropped non-essential elements, preferring to use simple cubic forms and industrial materials like steel and glass. Inversely Palladio\u27s famous villas and churches gave the essence of elegance and refinement with their symmetry, correct proportions, and traditional masonry construction. Although the two architects had a philosophical difference both were admirers of the technological advances that broadened the scope of design. Loos applied construction techniques like reinforced concrete, whereas Palladio used the sophisticated stonecutting and structural methods that produced domes, vaulting and monumental scales that were impossible before ornamentation Loose and Palladio had opposing views. Loos aimed to rid architecture of excessive embellishments in order to place function at the forefront. Palladio on the other hand added decorative elements to achieve a classical feeling of grandeur and beauty. This comparison demonstrates the variety of ambitions that different historical periods have for architecture.This analysis reveals the diverging philosophies of ornamentation, styles, and integration of the contemporary methods as the movements of modernism and Renaissance go through their processes

Bridging the Epochs of Ledoux and Da Vinci

Undergraduate Student: Nancy Sanchez Research Mentor(s): Ehsan Sheikholharam Mashhadi Bridging the Epochs of Ledoux and Da Vinci From two different periods of time, Claude-Nicholas Ledoux and Leonardo Da Vinci have transformed the history of architecture and art. Their work has helped shape the two eras they were a part of. Leonardo Da Vinci was from the 16th century and was coined as the ‘Italian Polymath of the High Renaissance era’, due to his extensive knowledge in engineering, painting, architecture, and science. Claude-Nicolas Ledoux was an 18th century neoclassical architect from France. Ledoux produced architecturally innovative work that influenced social changes in pre-revolutionary France. In particular, his most notable work, Salines de Chaux, helped represent the future of urban design by adopting utopian societies and ideology. This utopian ideology challenged the traditional concept of design and introduced a new standard of thinking in rational architecture. On the other hand, Leonardo da Vinci\u27s extraordinary methods and ways of thinking were reflected in his works of art, such as the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. His methods of drawing set new standards in forms of artistic expression. His thoughts and methods in science and technology were far ahead for his time, but were highly influential in Da Vinci’s era and in the subsequent modern period. By comparing the works of both Ledoux and Da Vinci, readers will have a better understanding of the significance their works had made in architecture and the artists’ receptive fields