Architecture: A Very Short Introduction

_{8. Cathedral of St Etienne, Bourges, France (begun 1190). Of all the medieval cathedrals, this is the one that best illustrates the idea of a building as a cage of light. The west end of the building is immensely solid, with five unequal doorways surrounded by hundreds of small sculpted figures. Above there are two unequal towers. The rest of the building however gives an impression of being precisely repetitive, as a standard type of bay is taken along the whole length of the building without interruption, and adapted with a minimum of difference so as to make it turn the semi-circular end at the west. The nave is immensely high, at 39 m (125 feet), and it is flanked by double aisles. The building is filled with light that filters through stained glass, painted with images of biblical stories. From the outside the buttressing that holds the building up is clearly visible, looking like a series of powerful props: they shore up the illusion of weightless delicacy within.}

Architectural merit

One might want to ask, ‘what is the real meaning of Gothic?’ but the question doesn’t allow a single answer that will satisfy everyone. If I react in a certain way to a building when I encounter it, then so far as I am concerned my reaction is genuine, and the way I react will depend on my previous experience. If it is the first time I have entered a Gothic cathedral, say, then I might be puzzled or impressed, seeing it as a place of wonder and mystery. If I have been in many other similar cathedrals then it might feel quite familiar, and I could find it steady and reassuring. I do not necessarily know what the designer intended me to feel. That does not mean that the experience must be without meaning for me. It is worth labouring the point, because architects tend to think of the matter differently. If an architect thinks of the design of buildings as a creative activity, then it is most likely that it would seem most important to work with sincerity and conviction, and less important to act with a view to second-guessing the reaction of an audience. Indeed, working with an eye on the crowd’s response might seem to indicate a lack of authenticity. Buildings designed by this sort of architect will be the way they are because that is how the architect feels they must be, and any compromise with the views of others will be a weakening and worsening of the design. It tends to be the case that this is the sort of architect admired by other architects. To people who do not share the vision, the view may look arrogant and inflexible, but to people who do share it the architect will seem inspired. Conversely, an architect who is sensitive to the audience’s response might take fewer risks, might tend to take a conservative view of cultural change, and might be seen as a reliable performer by the people who commission buildings, but such a designer will accrue no artistic kudos. Architects of this type greatly outnumber the others, but we do not hear about them in books about architecture, because, despite providing what society on the whole wants of them, they are seen by other architects at best as honest and competent but not particularly notable, or as slick commercial operators. Unqualified admiration is reserved for those who seem to manage to make their own ideas into buildings, and to bend the will of others to their own in order to make it happen. Indeed, this is no mean feat, because the will of the person paying for the building is usually the one that has most power, and so one of the great practical skills that architects need to have is the power to persuade.