Eindhoven University of Technology

MASTER

The Italian mannerist palazzoin search of a universal definition

Stoeldraijer, A.P.C.M.

Award date:2013

Link to publication

DisclaimerThis document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Studenttheses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the documentas presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the requiredminimum study period may vary in duration.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

The Italian mannerist palazzoin search of a universal definition

the Italian mannerist palazzoin search of a universal definition

Stoeldraijer, A.P.C.M.Januari 2013

4

Graduation ThesisA.P.C.M. Stoeldraijer

0607096Januari 2013

TU Eindhoven

Studio Complexity and Contradiction

Graduation Committeeprof. dr. Bernard Colenbrander

arch. AvB Sjef van Hoof

5

Acknowledgements

Preface

Summary

Complexity and contradiction

The Italian mannerist palazzo

Intermezzo

The Italian mannerist palazzo continued

Complexity and Contradiction continued

The Italian palazzo of the present

Notes and credits

Contents6

7

9

13

17

29

35

49

55

77

6

This graduation document closes an important chapter in my life that I was happy to spend at the Technical University of Eindhoven between 2007 and 2013. I am gratefull to the following people who helped me with my graduation thesis in one way or another: Ben van Laerhoven, for his additional resources on palazzo Té; Serafina Cariglino, for her insights on project locations in Rome; my family and friends, for their support and wisdom in the process; prof dr. Bernard Colenbrander and ir Sjef van Hoof, for their critical reflections and support.

Bram Stoeldraijer

7

Complexity and contradiction in architecture, obviously, is a very broad subject. It is perfectly imaginable then that it would be difficult to decide on a graduation topic. However, from the first minute sixteenth century mannerism as an attitude to generate complexities in architecture has fascinated me. It was joined by the Italian mannerist palazzo in the process. The aim of this document is to capture the universal virtues of this sixteenth century attitude, relate these to the contemporary framework of complexity and contradiction, and finally utilize them in a case study.

In the first chapter the basics of complexity and contradiction in architecture will be discussed. Here, we will explain how the Italian mannerist palazzo is related to complexity and contradiction; subsequently the research question is posed.

The second chapter will briefly discuss the genesis of mannerism before it continues with the analysis of five sixteenth century Italian mannerist palazzo facades. These will be examined in order to determine the spectrum of mannerist parameters. The chapter concludes with a preliminary definition of the universal concept of maniera.

A brief intermezzo will give some additional information on the architects who designed the mannerist palazzi that have been discussed.

The third chapter continues the quest for maniera parameters in the sixteenth century Italian palazzo. Two of the most striking palazzi of the previous chapter will be discussed with regard to plan, vestibule and courtyard facades. The main staircase ends the mannerist palazzo sequence some years later. This chapter will conclude with the definite universal definition of the concept of maniera in architecture.

Once we have a definition of maniera, we are able to reflect once again on the conceptual framework of complexity and contradiction in architecture. If, and how maniera is related to this framework and ultimately contemporary architecture, will be discussed here.

In the fifth and final chapter a case study is formulated. Based on a recurrent architectural discussion that was re-enacted in Rome by the execution of the modernist museum designed by Richard Meier in 2006, a mannerist case study will be introduced to add a different approach to the existing spectrum. A luxurious single family palazzo dwelling will be designed on a plot in Rome.

Preface

8

9

This graduation document, the Italian mannerist palazzo, is rooted in a collaborated study of complexity and contradiction in architecture. This subject is obviously very broad, however, from the first minute sixteenth century mannerism as an attitude to generate complexities in architecture has fascinated me. It was joined by the Italian mannerist palazzo in the process. The aim of this document was to capture the parameters of manipulation in this sixteenth century attitude in order to define a universal definition which can be related to the contemporary framework of complexity and contradiction in architecture. This attitude of complex and contradictory architecture will eventually be demonstrated in a case study.

First we have to elaborate on some of the key aspects of complexity and contradiction in architecture, which have been based on Robert Venturi’s Post-Modern manifest, in order to put the current document into perspective. While designing a building many aspects have to be considered -such as program, structure, expression, context etc.-, quite often these might be contradictory. As we have experienced there are two ways to deal with such problems in the design process. An architecture of exclusion where many aspects of a design have been ignored in order to master a few of these brilliantly, and an architecture of inclusion, ‘both-and’, where contradictions between the aspects are appreciated rather than eliminated. Venturi mentioned the Italian palazzo as a textbook example of a very strong order which is required for one of the ‘both-and’ approaches to generate complex and contradictory architecture. However, he fails to mention mannerism in this context; an attitude that is present in the initial design of some sixteenth century palazzi. This attitude is concerned with the transformation and manipulation of architectural elements in the exaggerated order of the palazzo typology. An interest in the means that have been used, and the ambition to transform these in a universal definition of –maniera-, was the motive for this investigation.

The first step in the search of maniera as a concept focused on the Italian mannerist palazzo façade. The key aspects of the Italian palazzo façade are present in the High Renaissance standard of Bramante, and in particular in the façade of his palazzo Caprini. This standard has been used to point out the transformations in the design of five mannerist palazzo facades. A tension between order and disorder seems to be apparent in all of the transformations. The results have been used to create a preliminary definition of the universal concept of maniera: Maniera is concerned with exceeding the standard, while the essence of the model it rejects is adopted. The façade represents only a small part of the building, therefore maniera was further investigated.

Through the in-depth analysis of two of the best Mannerist representatives, in relation to a High Renaissance standard, the essential aspects of an attitude have been exposed. Various ways of transforming key aspects of the palazzo design have been distinguished in the plan, vestibule, courtyard, and main staircase. Quite a few of the examples demonstrated a tension between the primitive –rusticated elements- and the elegant –polished Renaissance elements-, although the element of surprise seems to play a role of equal importance. Additional maniera parameters with regard to those of the palazzo façade have not been found. This does not mean that all the parameters have been discovered, but it confirms that we must have a solid set. A set which can be divided into parameters related to a manipulation of the composition and parameters involved with the manipulation of actual elements. The preliminary definition of maniera still holds, and is transformed into a definite definition: Maniera is concerned with exceeding the standard, while the essence of the model it rejects is adopted.

Now that the universal definition of maniera has been determined, it is interesting

to see if and how this concept is related to the conceptual framework of complexity and contradiction in architecture. The Italian palazzo was mentioned as a textbook example of a very strong order which is required for one of the two ‘both-and’ approaches to generate complex and contradictory architecture. Maniera is best described as a niche of the approach, contradiction accommodated, and the required standard for mannerist manipulation can be of various origins similar to contradiction accommodated.

Summary

10

An important aspect of mannerist manipulation is the resultant tension in the composition; therefore maniera is specifically related to the most extreme aspects of this approach. The implementation of maniera in the conceptual framework of complexity and contradiction in architecture, then, has validated its universal application in architecture.

A luxurious single family palazzo dwelling of the present was used to test the universal application of maniera, and introduce a different perspective to the ongoing architectural debate with regard to developments in the ancient center of Rome. The specific approach of maniera to a (local) architectural standard, as well as the introduction of complexities in the design will most certainly be enriching to the Roman debate. Additionally, a second motive was handed by the search for mannerist means of manipulation; the exterior façade, the plan, the courtyard facades, and the main staircase, in subsequent order, characterize the route a visitor of the palazzo has to travel before he/she will arrive in the most important room of the building: the grand salon. These can be interpreted as a mannerist palazzo sequence. The aim is to introduce mutual mannerist tensions in the four aspects of the mannerist sequence. The same High Renaissance point of reference was used to design this palazzo in Rome. As a result a manipulated staircase has been imposed on the main exterior façade, a large loggia subsequently imposed the characteristics of the courtyard on the northern exterior façade, and the continuation of a manipulated main staircase has been violently imposed on the courtyard façades. The manipulation of the plan, which has also been of a supportive nature to the other aspects of the sequence, generated residual space due to the unresolved tensions in the urban block. This case study, then, is an example of the application of maniera as a universal architectural attitude and able to include the local architectural tradition; it emphasizes on the architecture of complexity and contradiction in the Roman debate.

13

2. Le Corbusier. Shodan House, Ahmedabad

1. Johnson. Glass House, New Canaan

Complexity and contradiction in architectureThis graduation document is rooted in a collaborated study performed in the first

half of 2012; the subject being complexity and contradiction in architecture. Here, I want to elaborate on some of the key aspects of this study in order to put the current document into perspective.

While designing a building many aspects have to be considered -such as program, structure, expression, context etc.-, quite often these might be contradictory. As we have experienced there are two ways to deal with such problems in the design process. The first, which had its heyday in the early twentieth century, is selective in the quantity of problems it tackles. In other words, many aspects of a design have been ignored in order to master a few of these brilliantly. It is therefore characterized by an architecture of exclusion.

“The doctrine “less is more” bemoans complexity and justifies exclusion for expressive purposes.”1

The statement ‘less is more’ of Mies van der Rohe, which embodies the architecture of exclusion, is beautifully illustrated by the design of the Glass House of Philip Johnson. It ignores many complexities present in the domestic program; private and public functions have not been separated and it lacks a variety in visual experience, all because of its elegant and simple appearance. This position has been labeled as ‘either-or’ because it is extremely selective in the problems it tackles.

The second method, propagated by Venturi, embraces rather than excludes all the problems that occur while designing a building. However, not all of the problems can be tackled succesfully because some might be contradictory. But, rather than excluding these aspects, the contradictions that occur are appreciated. They generate a complex and contradictory architecture that includes rather than excludes all of the aspects. The Shodhan House by Le Corbusier is closed yet open, the closed corners make it a cube although it is randomly opened on the surfaces. This can be summarized in a statement Venturi makes analogous to Mies:

“Where simplicity cannot work, simpleness results. Blatant simplification means bland architecture. Less is a bore.”2

This method was called ‘both-and’, and has been our point of interest.

2. ‘both-and’: two design approachesComplexity and contradiction in architecture aren’t always the result of well made

decisions. Sometimes they occur because of incoherence, arbitrariness or incompetence of the architect. In order to generate ‘both-and’ architecture based on well made decisions; two design approaches have been distinguished.

Contradiction accommodated: Starts with the creation of a strong order, which is able to tolerate inconsistencies.

Difficult whole: Starts with a variety of contrasting elements (inconsistencies) and tries to unify those with binding elements.

1 Venturi, R. 1977:172 Ibid:17

Complexity and contradiction

14

3. Sangallo. palazzo Taruggi, Montepulciano

3. Contradiction accommodated: the Italian palazzoAn exaggerated order is able to withstand complexities in the design. The reference

work we’ve used in our collaborated study mentions the Italian palazzo as a textbook example of a very strong order.

“The exaggerated order, and therefore exaggerated unity, along with certain characteristics of scale, are what make the monumentality in the Italian palazzo […]”3

This has been illustrated by an example of the palazzo Tarugi, which was able to withstand the various transformations it had to endure during its lifetime. The strong order in the facade is apparent through the use of columns on a regular distance. Two windows at the left of the top floor have been replaced by smaller examples and extra pilasters have been added. On the ground floor however, the bays have been opened up. Because of the exaggerated order, this palazzo was able to tolerate these inconsistencies.

This is all very interesting, however, Venturi fails to mention mannerism in this context; an attitude that is present in the initial design of some sixteenth century palazzi. This attitude is concerned with the transformation and manipulation of architectural elements in the exaggerated order of the palazzo typology. An interest in the means that have been used by these architects and the ambition to transform these in a universal definition of the attitude –maniera- is the primary goal of this document. These will be used to reflect upon the collaborated study performed on complexity and contradiction in architecture, in order to position this attitude in the larger framework we’ve created earlier. The key aspects of the palazzo typology, which have to be investigated in order to point out the maniera, and the universal definition of maniera will eventually be used to design an Italian palazzo of the present.

3 Venturi, R. 1977:41

17

4. Bramante. palazzo Caprini, Rome

Palazzo Tarugi, as we’ve seen, was an excellent example of an exaggerated order capable of tolerating contradictions that have occurred through changes in use over time. The Mannerist palazzo façade, on the other hand contains deliberate contradictions in the initial design. The architect plays a game with the exaggerated order of the palazzo typology. This study is concerned with the means that have been used by these architects in order to generate a universal definition of their attitude, which is called maniera. The research question is: What is the universal definition of maniera, and how is it used to create complexities in the exaggerated order of the Italian palazzo? The following essay will discuss the Mannerist palazzo façade. First, some of the key aspects of the High Renaissance are explained because these turn out to be important to grasp the genesis of Mannerism. Palazzo Caprini is introduced as a point of reference. Secondly five of the most striking Mannerist palazzo facades will be used to identify the means of the Mannerist architect. The goal is to generate a preliminary definition of maniera as a universal attitude.

It was because of the efforts of Brunelleschi4 and Alberti5 that classical members, such as Corinthian pilasters and Ionic colonnettes, were reintroduced after the ‘dark ages’ of the fourteenth century. It started a new epoch that ruled out the integrated forms of medieval architecture, and continued to be a search for the perfect system of harmony and symmetry in the fifteenth century. This is well illustrated by the gradual transformation of a newly introduced building type: the city palace or palazzo.

“Whereas the medieval castle had been a stronghold and a symbol of power, the palace of the Renaissance was to be presented in addition as a manifestation of the culture which formed the basis of aristocratic authority.”6

The emphasis on culture in Renaissance Rome was explicitly apparent in the active role of the church; and in particular Pope Julius II (1503-1513) who was involved in the architectural revolution that took place during his Papacy. He was patron of some of the finest artists, including Michelangelo, Raphael and Donato Bramante.7 Donato Bramante was the protagonist of this architectural revolution and fully regained the Vitruvian vocabulary -as had been introduced earlier by Brunelleschi and Alberti-, adapting it to the requirements of modern life.

Built by Bramante around 1510 -the exact date is uncertain-, the palazzo Caprini marked the culmination of High Renaissance palazzo architecture. The three-dimensional conception of the façade, composed of elementary parts in the simplest of materials is regarded as the most prominent contribution to palazzo design in the sixteenth century.8 Dictated by five equally proportioned bays, and a central entrance, it displayed a return to the classical or Roman concept which pursued harmony and symmetry. Apart from that a distinct contrast between the rusticated base and the superstructure in Doric order is displayed. The rustication would have referred to the primitive life of the average city dweller, while the Doric order at the piano Nobile suggests intellect and exquisite taste. Sadly, the structure has completely been destroyed, and it is only because of the engravings of Lafrery that we know how it must have looked like. The façade of palazzo Caprini will be used as a point of reference in this context in order to reflect upon its virtues while discussing the Mannerist façade.

As we’ve seen the knowledge of Vitruvius and the application of the orders became more codified under Bramante; it was in the painted works of Michelangelo and Raphael, however, that the artist showed a departure from natural beauty. Already in 1508 Michelangelo was working out a new standard which was classical in inspiration but idealized the beauty of form. Parts of the ceiling in the Sistine chapel (1508-1512) demonstrate such grace and elegance that the beauty of the work of art has become its subject so to say.

4 Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446): Italian architect, engineer and sculptor 5 Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472): Italian architect, poet, priest, linguist and philosopher6 Norberg-Schultz, C. 1975:2337 Donato Bramante (1444-1514): Italian architect and painter8 From Rowe, C. et al 2002:42-43

The Italian mannerist palazzo

18

5. Exaggerated order 6. Addition of unknown date

7. Rusticated base 8. Paneling system of upper elevations

A B A B A C A B A B A

19

10. Giulio Romano. palazzo Maccarani, Rome

The Ignudi, one of the figures on the ceiling, is represented in a very unnatural pose which is elegant, but seems to demand quite a lot of effort; which creates a tension. This was the first time that maniera began to characterize a style.9

When Pope Leo X was elected in 1514, he was happy to continue the legacy of Julius II in the visual arts. However, Leo showed no interest in the architectural works of Bramante. The design of St. Peter’s church, begun by Bramante, illustrated this lack of interest. After the death of Bramante, in 1514, the painter Raphael was appointed by the pope as his successor without ever having completed a major architectural project. Raphael introduced a different mindset, derived from his earlier career as a painter, in pursuit of a more harmonious and balanced composition of the church design. After two attempts in the course of four years he failed to achieve his goals; which can be attributed to this unorthodox working method. Although not successfully, this was the first attempt to introduce an attitude in architectural design based on principles we’ve earlier seen in the ceiling of the Sistine chapel. Michelangelo, the painter of this masterpiece, meanwhile was sent to Florence with a similar task as Raphael; architectural design. His New Sacristy and the Library at San Lorenzo in Florence -1519 and 1524 respectively- mark a significant change in approach to architectural design. Michelangelo successfully introduced an atmosphere of conflict and doubt hardly found in the history of art. This marks the successful introduction of Mannerism into architecture, and continued to be a desirable quality in the sixteenth century. Vasari, a sixteenth century art critic, explained in his ‘Lives of the Artists’ that Mannerism liberated architects to develop their own responses to classicism.

“Mannerism is an inadequate term for characterizing the period between the Renaissance and Baroque because it recognizes only one of the many different currents that developed within sixteenth century architecture.”10

It is important to note that Mannerism wasn’t the sole style in sixteenth century Italian architecture. When Raphael died in 1520 and Michelangelo went to Florence, the architectural development separated in two ways: A classical and almost archaeological approach which was demonstrated by Sangallo the Younger, and a more flexible and versatile approach demonstrated by Serlio, Sanmicheli, Romano and Peruzzi. Serlio was the most theoretical architect of the latter and produced his own treatise some years later, he never built a Mannerist palazzo though. In Rome the social climate changed after the death of pope Leo X, and it all culminated in 1527 during the Sack of Rome. The group of architects dispersed, which took Sanmicheli to Verona, and Peruzzi to Sienna, while Romano had left for Mantua a few years earlier.

Palazzo Maccarani (1520-1524)In 1520 Giulio Romano started work on the design of palazzo Maccarani. It was

built in Rome for a private owner, mr. Christoforo Cenci, and happens to be one of the first examples of a Mannerist palazzo façade.

Romano had to restructure several houses into a palatial residence, which was not uncommon in Rome at that time. The ground floor of the façade is rusticated, and the two other floors are plain. The rusticated ground floor is divided equally by a Doric portal which marks the entrance. This is all very similar to the palazzo Caprini we’ve seen earlier. However, in contrast with the system laid down by Bramante, rustication does not cover the whole ground floor. It is divided into vertical strips that have been intersected by large keystones. The vertical strips of rustication transform into double pilasters at the piano Nobile. These pilasters happen to be extremely flat and merely represent abstractions of the Doric order in the palazzo Caprini. Then, in the third story what appear to be pilasters are actually framing strips that are part of a paneling system. Here, the capacity of pilasters to create a strong order has been further reduced to a set of lines. If the façade is read from top to bottom these panels happen to dominate the whole façade, and it is from this grid system that the entrance originates.

9 From: Shearman, J. 1967:5310 Hopkins, A. 2002:7

9. Michelangelo. Ignudi, Sistine chapel

20

13. Manipulated rhythms

What first appeared to be structural –the rustication on the ground floor- is only ornament of a paneling system. 11 This creates a tension between the primitive (rustication on ground floor) and elegant (abstracted order of paneling system) in this palazzo façade. These are complexities that would not have been tolerated in High Renaissance architecture.

5. Giulio Romano: palazzo Té (1526-1534)Giulio Romano left Rome in October 1524, the losses of his teacher Raphael in 1520

and his patron Leo X in 1521 must have caused him to reconsider his career in Rome. He headed for Mantua and started working for his new patron Marquis Federico II Gonzaga. The story goes that Gonzage and Romano went on a horse trip to the stables of Gonzaga, here Gonzaga expressed his desire to have a little space to which he could resort for a meal or some amusement. This was presumably the origin of palazzo del Té, a spacious ducal villa disguised as an urban palazzo.12 If we look at the entrance façade, we can distinguish two elevations, separated by a flat band that seems to suggest a classical layout as seen in palazzo Caprini. However, the size of the pilasters has been extremely exaggerated and cuts

11 From Rowe, C. et al 2002:11312 From Rowe, C. et al 2002:85

A B C B D B E D G B F B A12. Odd rustication

11. Exaggerated columns

21

14. Giulio Romano. palazzo Té, Mantua

15. Michele Sanmicheli. palazzo Bevilacqua, Verona

through this band; suggesting that there is only one elevation. The same argument holds for the rusticated base the pilasters have been positioned on, which is an exaggeratedly compressed version of the rusticated ground floor we’ve seen earlier. An extreme tension in the horizontal composition of the façade is the result, and would have been intolerable for a Renaissance architect. Rustication is also present in a restless pattern around the windows of the ground floor, which seems to contradict a compressed base as suggested earlier. However, around the doors the rustication even penetrates the horizontal band between the elevations. Rustication thus appears in odd places and again creates a tension in the façade between the primitive (odd rustication) and the elegant (polished Renaissance pilasters). Already in 1537 Serlio wrote that it seemed partly a work of nature and partly a work of the artist so to say.13

The core function of the pilasters is to create a strong order in the vertical composition of the façade which is able to tolerate inconsistencies. Romano, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to bother and the pilasters in his façade have a spacing that wildly varies. In the center of the façade he abandons the pilasters altogether in order to house his triple entrance. At the corners the double pilasters are closer together than the next pair which embodies a niche. The only thing that seems to remain of the strong order in a palazzo façade is the symmetry in its composition.

7. Michele Sanmicheli: palazzo Bevilacqua (1529-1532) FlorenceWhen Sanmicheli returned to Verona in 1529, few local architects could match his

architectural skills. In our era, the achievements of Sanmicheli have been overshadowed by other great names, because he didn’t write an architectural treatise nor did he built on important locations in the city. The exteriors of his buildings are conventional at first glance, yet the arrangement of the architectural members creates a complex system of rhythms. His approach to antiquity is both inventive and rigorous. He is best known for the three palaces he designed after his return to Verona: palazzo Bevilacqua (1529-1532), palazzo Pompei (Begun in 1530) and palazzo Canossa (1537). These are the earliest and most direct examples of the impact of Bramante and Raphael in the area, of which their facades are the most conspicuous in reference. Bevilacqua was Sanmicheli’s first palazzo design and shows his admiration for Bramante. It is, as the palazzo Caprini of Bramante, a building of two stories with a rusticated ground floor as a base, and a piano Nobile with columns to separate the windows. The entrance was to be central, which means the façade was never finished and should have had an additional four bays to the left. It all looks very symmetrical as a fine example of Renaissance architecture would have. But if one looks closer and examines the detail in the façade, confusion enters the composition. The bays of the ground floor have varying widths, although these differences have not been marked enough to be sure about their meaning. And if we look at the rhythm of the pediments above the windows in the smaller bays of the piano Nobile, one can distinguish a triangular and a segmental type. If we would call the triangular pediment -a- and the segmental pediment -b- a rhythm from right to left appears of -a-b-b-a- which seems to be appropriate to a symmetrical scheme. However, when the missing four bays are to be included, the rhythm would be -a-b-b-a-a-b-, and the symmetry in the façade is lost. This rhythm violently contrasts the altering rhythm of small and wide bays and it interferes with the central entrance. Some say Sanmicheli installed the pediment rhythm as an afterthought when it was clear that the additional four bays weren’t going to be built. But, as Pevsner already stated “[…] no Renaissance architect would have tolerated the presence of two alternatively exclusive rhythms in the finished front.”14 What appears is a mannerist characteristic of a contrasting rhythm in the façade.

13 From Pevsner, N. 1946:122 14 Pevsner, N. 1946:120

16. Baldassare Peruzzi. palazzo Massimo, Rome

22

8. Baldassare Peruzzi: palazzo Massimo (1532-1536) RomeThe destruction of the city during the Sack of Rome in 1527 brought about the

construction of one of its greatest architectural masterpieces.15 The family house of the Massimi was destroyed and the head of the family was killed, leaving the remains of the family house to his three sons. The eldest, Pietro, decided to hire Baldassare Peruzzi, who was to return from Sienna in 1532, to construct his new palazzo.

The curve in the façade is probably the first aspect that draws the attention and contributes to its imposing appearance. However, this feature was not intentional. The palazzo is built upon the remains of the Odeon of Domitian which opposed its curve to the Via Papalis and ultimately to the design of palazzo Massimo. The motive cannot be characterized as Mannerist because it was derived from local conditions, but Mannerist tendencies can be traced in the way it was executed and thereby show the artistic willfulness of the architect.

The façade of the palazzo Massimo has a rusticated base as was common according to Renaissance rules; the integration of pilasters and columns at the ground floor, however,

15 From Rowe, C. et al 2002:115

18. Exaggerated order in planned palazzo

A B A B A B A

A B A B A B AA B A B

17. Exaggerated order

19. contradicting rhythms

23

21. Columns at the base

was not. Peruzzi used these because it was the only location where they could be used in any meaningful way. His motive being the narrow Via Papalis, this palazzo was located on during its erection. Later it was transformed into the much wider Corso Vittorio Emanuele through the demolition of houses on the other side of the Via Papalis. The rusticated finish we’ve noticed earlier on the ground floor covers the whole façade, including the piano Nobile. This is odd, and highly against Renaissance rules, as was the absence of columns on the piano Nobile. The rusticated pattern is extremely abstracted; the blocks are smaller and regularly sized, and are transformed into a grid system on the façade. This system has taken over the role of the columns to create order in the upper part of the façade and increases the appearance of it being some sort of screen. The window frames are also abstracted, and have been flattened, denying their structural function altogether.16

In the palazzo Massimo the traditional relation between opera di natura and opera di mano is turned upside down and creates a tension between the primitive and the polished, as we have seen earlier. The polished orders carry an abstracted rusticated wall which has taken over the function of the orders.

16 From Davidovici, I. 2004:104

A B A A BB C A B A A BB A

20. Exaggerated order

22. Rusticated elevations

24

25. Distorted orders

9. Giulio Romano: palazzo Ducale – La Rustica (1538-1539) MantuaThe palazzo Ducale of Mantua was the royal residence of the Noble Gonzaga family

from the fourteenth century onwards. Romano was commissioned to design an additional apartment to the palazzo of his patron, which was intended to face the lakefront garden. La Rustica, as it was called, is now part of an inner courtyard that was used by the Gonzaga family to show their horses before they were sold. The additional three facades are built later by Giovanni Battista Bertani somewhere around 1556 and have been erected in the style of Romano. This façade, created by Giulio Romano, again is in essence a Bramantesque palazzo type. But it doesn’t go any further than a superficial analogy. The width of the arches on the rusticated ground floor has been shaped irregularly. A rhythm of -a-a-a-b-b-b-a- seems to characterize this variation in width and demonstrates a rude manipulation of the exaggerated order. The arches have been filled irregularly, and to finish it off Romano pulled the rusticated blocks that form the piers of the ground floor out as if to suggest a total instability of the base. It seems to be as if Romano continued where he left off in the palazzo del Té.

The rhythm has been imposed on the piano Nobile as well and shows a similar variation in spacing between the columns. These have been distorted in an unusual way, twisting from left to right as if to suggest a tension of enclosed forces while resting on

A A A B B B A

23. varying rhythm

26. Rusticated window frames piano Nobile

24. Unstable rusticated base

2527. Giulio Romano. palazzo Ducale, Mantua

unstable cantilevered consoles. The window frames on the piano Nobile have been replaced by a pattern of rustication and again a tension is created between the primitive and the elegant.

RecapitaFive palazzi have been discussed with regard to their mannerist features. We’ve seen a

variety of parameters that have been used to manipulate the standard or convention, as was represented by the High Renaissance palazzo Caprini of Bramante. These where:

- Abstraction of elements, in palazzo Maccarani and palazzo Massimo- Exaggeration of elements, in palazzo Té and palazzo Ducale- Refinement of elements, in palazzo Massimo- Distortion of elements, in palazzo Ducale- Suggestion of structural failure, in palazzo Té and palazzo Ducale- Suggestion of primitiveness, in palazzo Té- Suggesting enclosed forces, in palazzo Ducale- Contradicting rhythms, palazzo Bevilacqua- Manipulating exaggerated order, in palazzo Té and palazzo Ducale

First of all it is important to note that conventional elements, common in their use, have been the subject of manipulation in the preceding facades. The examples used here have been based on High Renaissance elements because these were considered the standard in the sixteenth century. If we are to interpret this for a universal definition of maniera it is important not to relate it solely to a Renaissance standard, but to conventional elements in contemporary architecture. The complexities that have been created in these facades all involve a certain tension which seems to be characteristic of maniera.

A provisional definition of the universal concept of maniera would be: Maniera is concerned with exceeding the standard, while the essence of the model it rejects is adopted.

ConclusionThe key aspects of the Italian palazzo façade have currently been distinguished.

These are an exaggerated order which is visually present on the façade, the rusticated base, a central entrance and the main floor, which is raised above ground. These are all present in the High Renaissance standard, as discussed in the façade of palazzo Caprini. Through the analysis of five Mannerist palazzo facades the essential aspects of an attitude have been crystallized. Various ways of transforming key aspects of the palazzo design have been categorized; all of these resulted in a tension between order and disorder. Quite a few of the examples demonstrated a tension between the primitive –rusticated elements- and the elegant – polished Renaissance elements-.

The results have been used to create a preliminary definition of the universal concept of maniera: Maniera is concerned with exceeding the standard, while the essence the model it rejects is adopted. Because the façade is only a small part of the building, as has been demonstrated by Hopkins, maniera and the palazzo façade will be investigated in more depth in the following chapters.

“Stylistic analysis, focusing on the orders and their application to the elevation of a building, is the principle preoccupation of many critics. But it constitutes only one element of architectural design […]”17

This was the first step in the search of maniera as a concept. In the following chapter Mannerism will be related with the plan, courtyard and its facades, staircase and monumental room of the Italian palazzo.

17 Hopkins, A. 2002:8

26

29

Intermezzo

Verona. - Birthplace of Michele Sanmicheli- palazzo Bevilacqua

Mantua. - palazzo Té- palazzo Ducale

Sienna. - Birthplace of Baldassarre Peruzzi

Rome. - Birthplace of Giulio Romano- palazzo Maccarani- palazzo Massimo

30

28. Baldassarre Peruzzi

Baldassarre Peruzzi (1481-1536)Peruzzi was born in Sienna, where he was initially

trained as a painter. He mastered both practice and theory and therefore belonged to a select group of artists, the uomo universale, whose works ranged from the arts to engineering. The oeuvre of Peruzzi included works of draftsmanship, painting, and architecture; and by the end of his live he had become the leading architect both in Siena and Rome. The High Renaissance palazzo della Farnesina, the mannerist palazzo Massimo, and his theoretical contributions to architecture are considered to be his greatest achievements. His architectural theory has become known throughout Europe thanks to his disciple Sebastiano Serlio.

Peruzzi left for Rome somewhere in the first decade of the sixteenth century. For a beginning architect, Rome was without question the best place to be at the time. Not only were there the remains of antiquity, but also, under the patronage of Pope Julius II, Donato Bramante was creating the architectural style of High Renaissance. Peruzzi contributed to these developments due to his patron, the rich banker Agostino Chigi, who charged him with one of the most renowned architectural commissions of cinquecento Rome; the palazzo della Farnesina.

Among the Roman artists of that time Peruzzi held a high, but certainly not a leading position, and his work was open to the influence of Bramante, Raphael and Romano. In 1520, when he acquired the position of assistant architect to Sangallo the Younger in the construction of St. Peter’s, it changed and he became an autonomous personality. In the second decade of the sixteenth century Peruzzi concentrated more on his works as a painter, and the illusionist decorations of the Sala delle Prospettive in the Farnese palace are among his best known works. Baldassarre Peruzzi died before his final masterpiece, the palazzo Massimo alle Colonne in Rome, was completed; and was buried next to Raphael in the Pantheon.

31

29. Micheli sanmichele

Micheli Sanmichele (1484-1559)Sanmichele was born in Verona, and was initially

trained by his father. He was probably the most versatile of the great High Renaissance architects in northern Italy. At the age of sixteen Micheli went to Rome, where he from 1500 onwards was influenced by the architectural style of Donato Bramante. It was during his full quarter century Roman career that Micheli met with Antonio Sangallo the Younger who was to become a close friend. Both worked for Cardinal Giulio de Medici; the later Pope Clement VII who sent Sanmichele, among others, on a tour to repair city walls in the northern part of the Papal States due to the foreign military threads that were to culminate in the Sack of Rome. (1527)

By the winter of 1526-1527 Micheli returned home to his native Verona, and was charged with the construction of the defensive walls around the city. He became an expert in military architecture, and in the early 1530s he was dispatched on a lifelong series of appointments to create and maintain a network of modern fortresses in the Venetian empire overseas. Sanmicheli’s most impressive achievement, however, is that he resisted narrow specialization in the military architecture of which he became the foremost European authority. Many of his private buildings attained an exceptional distinction, and together with Jacopo Sansovino he was responsible for the introduction of the developed central Italian mode of High Renaissance architecture into the Venetian domain. His never executed project of 1528 for a palace on the Grand Canal in Venice is a masterly adaptation of Roman grandeur to a Venetian site. In Verona he executed three palazzi between 1529 and 1537; palazzo Bevilacqua, palazzo Pompei, and palazzo Canossa, which show strong evidences of influence from Sebastiano Serlio, and subsequently Baldassarre Peruzzi.

32

30. Giulio Romano

Giulio Romano (1499-1546)Giulio Pippi, better known as Giulio Romano

was the first Renaissance artist of note born in Rome. Romano was the most gifted of Raphael’s assistants and a major figure in the Italian art and architecture during the late Renaissance. He was a painter as well as an architect and was raised in the architectural traditions of the High Renaissance, however, Giulio chose not to imitate High Renaissance style, but rather to elaborate on its themes.

With Baldassare Peruzzi and Michele Sanmicheli, Giulio formed a group of architects, called the Mannerists, who violated the classical norms of antiquity which had been perfected by Bramante.1 The beginning of Giulio’s independent career as an artist and architect started upon the death of Raphael in 1520; when Romano inherited the major commissions of his master. The most imposing of his buildings in Rome, the palazzo Maccarani, was his first independent commission, and showed his inventive skills.

In 1524, Giulio was invited to Mantua by Duke Federico Gonzaga. He built his masterpiece, the palazzo Té, for his new patron in the low lying lake country just outside Mantua. Subsequently Romano was made responsible for all Gonzaga buildings in Mantuan territory and many simple structures in the area. Giulio made a number of additions to the Gonzaga city residence, the palazzo Ducale in Mantua. Despite these architectural achievements, Romano was better known as a painter than as an architect. In particular his engravings of palazzo Té spread his fame throughout Europe. He is the only artist of the Italian Renaissance ever to be mentioned in the works of William Shakespeare. With the death of his patron Federico Gonzaga in 1540, Giulio was put largely on restoration work in the area before he died in 1546.

1 From Placzek, A.K. 1982: 216

35

31. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, palazzo Farnese: plan, Rome

The sixteenth century palazzo façade, as discussed in the previous essay, was subject to mannerist transformation and manipulation. A variety of means have been distinguished so far, but, as Hopkins pointed out, Mannerism wasn’t solely concerned with the transformation of the façade.

“Stylistic analysis, focusing on the orders and their application to the elevation of a building, is the principal preoccupation of many critics. But it constitutes only one element of architectural design […]”1

Here, the focus will be on the other key aspects of the High Renaissance palazzo that have been manipulated in one way or the other. The aim is to consolidate the preliminary universal definition of maniera as was stated in the previous essay. Again, a High Renaissance example will be used as a point of reference, on this occasion followed by two of the best Mannerist representatives we discussed earlier; the palazzo Té and palazzo Massimo. The key aspects include the palazzo plan and vestibule, the courtyard facades, and the staircase; each of which will be discussed independently. The subsequent results along with those of the previous essay will be used to identify the means of the Mannerist architect in order to generate a preliminary definition of maniera as a universal attitude.

THE PALAZZO PLAN AND VESTIBULEAfter the death of Bramante, in 1514, it was Antonio da Sangallo the Younger -one

of Bramante’s apprentices- who continued to design in the legacy of his master. Antonio became the leading member of a group of architects in pursuit of the historically correct application of the classical vocabulary in architecture, and found discipline in Vitruvius as well as archaeology. His masterpiece, the design of the palazzo Farnese continued to be a work in progress from 1517 until his death in 1546. It was commissioned by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, and was the largest, the most conspicuous, and the most luxurious palazzo in cinquecento Rome. There is, apart from palazzo Caprini, no other palazzo imaginable which is able to represent the virtues of High Renaissance palazzo architecture; as Rowe put it:

“Sangallo’s design for the palazzo Farnese defined the image of the Roman palace for the next four centuries.”2

The plan of palazzo Farnese displays some of the key convictions of Renaissance man, the pursuit of perfect form through harmony and symmetry. One immediately notices the square, enclosed volume, centered on a courtyard. The center of this perfectly square courtyard subsequently is the stage of two intersecting axis of symmetry; a main axis on which the primary entrance and vestibule have been located, and a secondary axis that incorporates two subordinate entrances.3 Perfection of form was far more important as functional meaning and because of it every part of the palazzo should appear as a clear, easily recognizable, and rather independent form. This is evident in the plan of the courtyard, but it can also be admired in the vestibule of palazzo Farnese. Note that the main entrance door is located in the exterior façade and creates an abrupt detachment of the public and the private realm. Behind it, a basilica-shaped vestibule is located which is a realization of what many architects believed to be the form of an ancient atrium as described by Vitruvius. It is centered on the main axis and displays an orgy of pure harmony and symmetry. As a consequence, High Renaissance palazzi appear to be very static.

It was due to Raphael, however, that the conception of space and consequently the conception of the ideal plan transformed significantly during the cinquecento. Cardinal Giulio de’Medici, the future Pope Clement VII and a relative of Pope Leo X, commissioned Raphael to design a Villa in the outskirts of Rome. What Raphael failed to achieve in the

1 Hopkins, A. 2002:82 Rowe, C. et al 2002:1243 The rear façade of palazzo Farnese, opposite to the primary entrance, incorporates a portico that was added by Giacomo della Porta in an attempt to adapt the palazzo to changing demands. This portico, constructed in 1589, obviously isn’t part of the initial design.

Italian mannerist palazzo continued

32. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, palazzo Farnese: vestibule, Rome

36

33.Manipulating exaggerated order of plan in palazzo Té

north entrance + small garden

east entrance + garden

west entrance

37

34.Raphael, villa Madama, Rome

design of St. Peter’s church over the course of four years, he was able to realize in the design of this villa. The building, which was started in 1516, maintained the spatial continuity of High Renaissance architecture through a sequence of spaces with a great sense of axiality. However, the static ensemble of relatively independent objects was replaced by a dynamic interplay of contrasting elements.4 Here, Raphael introduced the two key principles of mannerist space; the element of surprise and interaction with the environment. An overall symmetry was abandoned, in order to fuse a cross-axial, asymmetrical grouping of spaces. The hippodrome, loggia, garden terraces, theatre and vestibule were designed in such a way that they could be used simultaneously as well as individually. Visitors could only grasp the plan as a whole when they had visited all of the successive parts.5 The static, symbolic, and somewhat dull space of Renaissance architecture was transformed into a dynamic occupation of the environment.

The virtues of mannerist space, as seen in Raphael’s villa, have also been adopted in the more conservative palazzo typology which developed considerably during the sixteenth century. The static volume, which was common in High Renaissance architecture, was gradually opened up, and a development of increasingly sophisticated plans based on variations that could be achieved within the limits of an individual building type were pursuit by the Mannerists.

PALAZZO TÉTo a great extend the palazzo Té by Giulio Romano repeats the essentials of the

High Renaissance palazzo plan as was illustrated by Sangallo the Younger in his palazzo Farnese. A large, square building encloses an equally square courtyard. If one enters the palazzo through the north entrance, there seem to be, apart from the opened up vestibule, no shocking changes to the Renaissance plan as illustrated by palazzo Farnese. On either side of the courtyard, secondary entrances have seemingly been positioned illustrating the secondary axis perpendicular to the main axis. However, the center of the vestibule in the northern façade and the main axis of the courtyard appear to be slightly out of key; this can be attributed to the vestibule being not lined up properly. The result might be Romano’s subtlest break with the Renaissance rules of arrangement. However, the northern entrance façade originally faced a small garden and wasn’t visible from any great distance when Giulio left it. Back then the west façade was the original place of entrance, and displays a more Bramantesque composition in the intercolumniations.6

What at first glance appeared to be two secondary entrances can now be identified as the entry’s to a vestibule to the west and a large garden loggia to the east. This vestibule seems to be Romano’s answer on Sangallo the Youngers vestibule at the palazzo Farnese.7 The columns are extremely rough, and look as if they still have to be carved out of the material. An extreme primitiveness is suggested which can almost be considered as a parody upon Sangallo. The extremely wide intercolumniations of this vestibule draw the attention as they are interrupted by inexplicable keystones.8 Obviously Romano must have thought that a rough surface wasn’t enough to suggest primitiveness as well as structural failure.

In the courtyard we see a large garden behind the aforementioned eastern garden loggia; a scene that would become common in the second half of the sixteenth century as palazzi start to interact with the environment. Ultimately if one uses the west entrance, it appears to be the main axis. Romano succeeded to introduce the appearance of a main axis to both of the central axis of the palazzo plan. Along the north-south axis a traditional Renaissance layout can be experienced, while an opened up version is displayed along the east-west axis. These appearances, however, only work up to a certain point. If one is positioned in the center of the courtyard and examines all the directions, the whole Renaissance idea of harmony and symmetry is brutally disturbed; a garden can be seen to east as well as to the north. At this point one can even ask if there exists a main axis at all. Romano ingeniously used the interaction with the environment to manipulate the Renaissance rules of arrangement and break the apparent symmetry in the composition.

4 From Norberg-Schultz, C. 1975:2565 From Lotz, W. 1974:1726 From Rowe, C. et al 2002:887 Ibid8 From Lotz, W. 1974:229

36.Suggesting structural failure in the vestibule of palazzo Té

35.Suggesting extreme primitivess in the vestibule of palazzo Té

38

37.Manipulating exaggerated order of plan in palazzo Massimo

PALAZZO MASSIMOThe palazzo Massimo, in contrast to palazzo Farnese, is situated in a capricious

Roman urban block. Despite the rough edges, it displays the basic layout of the Renaissance palazzo. An open courtyard is positioned in the center of the plan. However, in contrast to the palazzo Farnese, Peruzzi’s courtyard is rectangular rather than square. This distortion of the courtyard results in a dominant courtyard axis perpendicular to the main axis.

As a result the courtyard plan introduces an element of surprise because it deviates from the central axis without abandoning it. Apart from the courtyard it was the vestibule which contributed most to the manipulation of the Renaissance palazzo plan. The large vestibule in the entrance façade opened up the palazzo to the environment. Peruzzi centered the vestibule according to the street opposite to it; consequently he had to position the whole façade off center. What resulted was a considerable part of fake façade in front of the adjacent palazzo in order to regain symmetry. It also caused the axis of symmetry in the vestibule to be slightly rotated with respect to the main axis of the plan. This subtle mannerist action of a unusually curved vestibule, which was a redesign of a Roman portico in antis, demonstrates Peruzzi’s ingenuity.9

“In contrast to equally professional architects such as Antonio the Younger who found discipline in Vitruvius and archaeology, Peruzzi was attentive to the remains of unconventional ancient buildings and was notably flexible in his application of their motifs.”10

The positioning of the vestibule had far reaching consequences for the rest of the plan. The corridor which starts on the central axis of the vestibule does not connect to the center of the courtyard, but rather to its side. Here, Peruzzi most notably breaks with the centralized plan of high Renaissance and similarities start to appear with the Mannerist space of Raphael.

“[…] Raphael’s creative use of irregularities in planning was carried on by Baldassare Peruzzi, most notably in the Palazzo Massimo.”11

What we end up with then is an overall composition of vestibule, corridor and courtyard which is fragmented rather than perfectly symmetrical, and therefore doesn’t meet the demands of Renaissance perfection. It is rather an asymmetrical composition of spaces that can only be grasped by the visitor as a whole when they have visited all of the successive parts.

THE COURTYARD FACADESAntonio da Sangallo the Younger continued to work on the design of palazzo Farnese

until his death in 1546. The design was considerably revised and enlarged in 1534 on request of his client, Cardinal Alessandro, who then was elected to the papacy as Pope Paul III. Sangallo was now charged with making a papal rather than a cardinal’s palazzo and consequently nearly the entire structure was rebuilt. The courtyard, which is arguably the most significant element of the palazzo typology, bares some of the remains of these actions. The extraordinary double moldings on the ground-floor piers, a detail sanctioned neither by antiquity nor by contemporary use, can be attributed to this action.12 Antonio, however, remained true to the Renaissance virtues of harmony and symmetry that were typical for courtyard design. The development of the courtyard facade throughout the fifteenth century can hardly be called excessive. Its key elements had been introduced as early as the 1420s, and it continued to be a matter of minor adjustments on the theme towards its culmination in high Renaissance architecture. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger’s design for the courtyard facades of palazzo Farnese clearly demonstrated these High Renaissance virtues. Each of the four courtyard facades is of equal dimensions, embodying perfect

9 From Murrey, P. 1971:179 10 Rowe, C. et al 2002:14511 Rowe, C. et al 2002:11812 From Rowe, C. et al 2002:123

39

38.Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, palazzo Farnese: courtyard, Rome

harmony and symmetry. A very strong order is apparent in the five equally proportioned bays where entrances have been positioned in the center. The courtyard facades, in contrast with the exterior facades, have been opened up and classical orders are found as constituent members of the surrounding loggias. The exterior façade of palazzo Caprini marked a distinct division between the rustica base and the classical orders of the piano Nobile; here a similar vertical partitioning can be noticed, although rustica is nowhere to be found in the courtyard facades. The ground floor arcades and underlying facades have been supported by columns of the Doric order, while the piano Nobile adopted the Ionic order. This is yet another expression of Renaissance belief in the fact that every part of a palazzo should appear as a clear, easily recognizable, and rather independent form.

Today, the courtyard facades of palazzo Farnese look somewhat different as they did when Antonio left them after his death in 1546. Pope Paul III, who wanted his palazzo to be finished, turned to another architect; his name was Michelangelo. It must have turned Sangallo the Younger over in his grave that precisely Michelangelo, the initiator of mannerist architecture was about to transform his beloved palazzo Farnese. Michelangelo indeed modified the High Renaissance design of Sangallo in several important respects.

“In his designs for the cornice and the completion of the courtyard, Michelangelo emphasized bold contrasts over academic correctness to such an extent that Sangallo’s estimable achievements appear to have been unmercifully satirized.”13

Subsequently Michelangelo changed three of the courtyard facades, the open loggia of the piano Nobile were turned into closed facades. The arcades of Sangallo’s initial design are still visible, but after Michelangelo they are joined by a rhythm of centered windows. It is interesting though, that the courtyard facades because of these transformations seem to lose their open character as will be emphasized by the following case studies.

Thereafter, even a third storey was added by Michelangelo. His successor, Giacomo della Porta would eventually finish the palazzo with the construction of the famous garden loggia in 1589. The palazzo Farnese then is the product of a variety of architects with a variety of plans. Don’t be fooled though, because by far the largest part of the palazzo Farnese, as it stands today, goes back to Antonio Sangallo the Younger.

PALAZZO DEL TÉWhen the courtyard façades of palazzo Farnese, as designed by Antonio, and Giulio’s

palazzo Té are positioned next to each other, there seems to be little resemblance. The courtyard facades of palazzo del Té do not have open arcades, or even the slightest reference to one. Yes, the Doric pilasters of the exterior façade have been replaced by the attached Doric columns of Bramante, as we’ve seen earlier in the exterior façade of palazzo Caprini. But again has their size been extremely exaggerated and cuts through the flat band which separates the two elevations. In fact, the east and west façade seem to have been stripped of this band on several occasions. What’s more, on every occasion the flat band has been abandoned one of the triglyphs drops down as if to suggest the whole building will soon collapse. Romano must have been pleased to show that his courtyard facades evoke an even greater suggestion of structural failure as his exterior façade already had done. An extreme tension in the horizontal composition of these facades is the result, and would have been intolerable for a Renaissance architect.

It must be noted that all four courtyard facades have equal dimensions and face a square courtyard, as one would expect of a High Renaissance palazzo. Ionic columns on the piano Nobile, as have been represented by palazzo Farnese, are replaces by the hugely exaggerated Doric columns we mentioned before. Quite interesting is the appearance of Rustica in the courtyard facades, which indicates along with the absence of Ionic columns a re-introduction of the themes we saw earlier in the exterior facade.

13 Rowe, C. et al 2002:124

40

41.Huge columns

40.Odd rustication

39.Manipulating exaggerated order

A B C D E F E

A B A A A A AB B BC

north courtyard facade

north courtyard facade

north courtyard facade

east courtyard facade

east courtyard facade

east courtyard facade

44.Huge columns + suggesting structural failure

43.odd rustication

42.Exaggerated order

41

A B C D E E F

A B A A A A AB C B B

46.Huge columns

45.Odd rustication

figuur 1Manipulating exaggerated order

49.Huge columns + suggesting structural failure

48.odd rustication

47.Exaggerated order

south courtyard facade

south courtyard facade

south courtyard facade

west courtyard facade

west courtyard facade

west courtyard facade

42

52.Overrefined and odd rustication

Rustication in the exterior façade was present in a restless pattern around the windows; here a non-continuous pattern of rustication seems to deny any structural ambition. As a result the pediments above the windows lack support and seem to suggest an enclosure of forces. Rustication is again present above the entrances although it doesn’t penetrate the horizontal band between the elevations. The exception to this rule forms the extremely exaggerated keystone above the east entrance. The exaggerated order, through the use of columns on a fixed distance, in the courtyard of palazzo Farnese represents Renaissance harmony and symmetry in the composition. The columns in the east and west courtyard façade of palazzo Té have been positioned in the simple triumphal arch rhythm of the Renaissance –a-b-a-.14 Five equally proportioned bays are displayed, and these reply to the Renaissance layout of the palazzo Farnese. However, if one accidentally turns their attention over to the north or south elevations of the courtyard, you’re in for a big shock. Here, the exaggerated order of the Doric columns is highly manipulated and doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. The spacing between the columns wildly varies as they seem to continue the theme we’ve earlier seen in the northern exterior façade.

14 From Pevsner, N. 1946:121

51.Abstracted elements

north courtyard facade

north courtyard facade

east courtyard facade

east courtyard facade

east courtyard facade

south courtyard facade west courtyard facade

west courtyard facade

west courtyard facade

A

50.exaggerated order

A A B B B A A A B B B

43

53. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, palazzo Farnese: staircase, Rome

54. Michelangelo, Laurentian library, Florence

It forms a decisive break with the similarity of the four courtyard facades in palazzo Farnese. Instead, we can distinguish two sets of facades, a north-south and the east-west pair, that have been manipulated differently.

PALAZZO MASSIMOThe courtyard facades of palazzo Massimo show a corresponding development as seen

in the palazzo Té. Peruzzi, however, had already transformed the courtyard from a square into a rectangular shape. Naturally, two sets of courtyard facades can be distinguished rather than the four equally proportioned fronts of the palazzo Farnese. These sets continue to be a leitmotif for Peruzzi throughout the rest of the design. In contrast to the exterior façade, the courtyard has only three storeys instead of four. On the ground floor an evenly distributed order of Doric columns and pilasters create a three bay rhythm in all four facades, which very much applies to Renaissance standard. The north and south façade have been opened up by spacious loggia, as were presented in the palazzo Farnese. However, the east and west façade have been closed by Peruzzi emphasizing the contrast between these two sets of facades. It is also interesting to note the difference between the coupled columns of the exterior façade and the single columns of the courtyard. The design of the piano Nobile, however, displays a further detachment from Renaissance rule. While the south façade obeys Renaissance rule with an open loggia supported by Ionic members, the north façade has been closed. It displays Ionic members on the piano Nobile, but introduces the refined rustication we saw earlier on the exterior façade. Peruzzi, like Romano, herewith introduces a tension we’ve seen earlier in the exterior façade. The tension has been enforced on this occasion, because Peruzzi put it right against an ideal example of Renaissance courtyard design. The east and west courtyard façade have been abstracted to a greater extend and do not display columns or pilasters at all on the piano Nobile, instead the extremely abstracted rusticated pattern of the exterior elevation was exposed on these facades. It is quite interesting that Peruzzi has used the mannerist tools of manipulation to emphasize on the differences of the paired facades rather than attempting to cover up the differences in order to restore a unified composition as a Renaissance artist would do.

THE STAIRCASEIn early and high Renaissance architecture the position of the main staircase in

palazzo design was menial, it was thought of as a necessity, unable to participate in the architectural ambitions of the architect. In the design of the palazzo Farnese, Sangallo located the main staircase in the eastern side wing. It was given a position that was compromised; a more generous volume of the chambers on the ground floor and piano Nobile was considered far more important as a significant location for the main staircase.15 The staircase consists of three ramps, with the first short section beginning under the loggia. This construction with three flights quickly spread Rome in the sixteenth century, simply because it was considered both comfortable and functional.16

Giulio Romano as well as Peruzzi adopted the three flight staircase in the designs of their palazzi without ever having exposed them to one of the mannerist parameters. It must be noted that Peruzzi did manipulate the adjacent walls of the staircase, for instance by transforming a window. It seems odd that these staircases haven’t been subject to mannerist manipulation, because these palazzi have been designed in the late 1520s and early 1530s, some years after Michelangelo´s design for the library at San Lorenzo (1524).

However, it was in particular the design of the staircase in the small vestibule in front of the library Michelangelo wasn’t so happy about. His first attempt of 1524 shows a two flight staircase placed against the side walls of the vestibule which form a bridge in front of the library entrance. In 1525 he must have decided that the staircase should be positioned in the middle of the vestibule rather than to the sides. In 1534, the work on the library wasn’t finished, Michelangelo left for Rome. He was about to work for Pope Paul III (1534-1549), and never left Rome until his death in 1564. The work was continued by Tribolo, Vasari and Ammanati on verbal instructions of Michelangelo. Vasari took over the supervision of the vestibule, and convinced Michelangelo in 1558 to send from Rome

15 From Rowe, C. et al 2002:12316 From Cafà, V. 2007:221

44

55. Georgio Vasari, palazzo Vecchio, Florence

a small terracotta model of the final design of the staircase.17 Ammanati built the, now legendary, staircase in 1559. This staircase then singlehandedly changed the conception of the staircase by the introduction of an atmosphere of conflict and doubt, as the walls of the vestibule already had done in the 1520s. The final design of the staircase was quite an exaggeration in size compared to the initial model of 1524, it takes up half the floor-space of the vestibule, and for the first time it became a prominent architectural unit.

The staircase consists of three parallel flights of nine steps, and unites into one flight in the upper part. The threads of the central flight have been over-refined into convex shapes that seem to fall down in a cascade from the library door.18 The three lowest steps of the central flight are wider than those above them, and lie like concentric oval slabs on the floor of the vestibule, the first step surging outwards. These steps seem to deny the exaggerated order imposed by the rhythm of equal flights. At the ninth step a landing is positioned and the three flights unite in a single flight. However, the convex tenth step lies on the landing in the same way as the lowest step does on the floor of the vestibule. Because of it the two directions of upward movement of the side flights and downward movement of the central flight clash. What results is a tension between the overtly elegant central flight and the more functional side flights of the staircase.

From 1559 onwards, the staircase was transformed into an art-form. We do not mean that no earlier staircases were works of art, but it was given an unequaled architectural emphasis. The staircase became an architectural unit that was treated as a ‘tour de force’ and continued to be ever since. It was too late for Peruzzi and Romano to actively participate in the development of the mannerist staircase though, since they died in 1536 and 1546 respectively. It was left to the next generation of architects to continue this development.

Giorgio Vasari, the famous artist and art critic, continued to work for the Ducal Medici family of Florence after his participation in the construction of the Laurentian Library. Vasari was about to remodel the interior of the palazzo Vecchio as the principal seat of Ducal government. His first ambition was to design an improved staircase for the palazzo, most certainly inspired by his work on the library of Michelangelo. However, the duke replied that the existing stairs were sufficient, and he was right if we are to consider its functional aspects. Vasari on the other hand was talking aesthetics, and soon he had his way.19 In 1560 he started work, and his new staircase was located in the center of the building where it would link the ground floor entrance and courtyard to the Salone dei Cinquecento on the second floor. First of all, it exemplified one of the virtues of mannerist staircase design, an exaggeration in size. Apart from that the ingenious design of an integrated system composed of a single grand staircase with two sets of flights around a light-well embodies the principles of mannerist space. The visitor is not allowed to grasp the whole unit at once, but only its successive parts which have an element of surprise when one meets a choice. The symmetrical arrangement of the staircase provided access to the Salone dei Cincuecento, while an additional flight in the northern arm led to the private areas at the front of the palazzo. By doing so, Vasari broke the Renaissance rules of harmony and symmetry in the arrangement. This double-ramped mannerist staircase, ultimately derived from purely architectural considerations, changed the conception of staircase design in all future palazzi that were to be built.20

17 From Lotz, W. 1974:24518 From Wittkower, R. 1978:6019 From Shearman, J. 1967:11620 Ibid

45

RECAPITAIn the previous topics we’ve seen a variety of parameters that have been used to

manipulate the standard or convention, as was represented by the High Renaissance palazzo Farnese of Sangallo the Younger. These have been ordered according to the topic.

Maniera parameters in the plan:- Manipulating exaggerated order, in palazzo Té and palazzo Massimo- Distortion of elements, in palazzo MassimoManiera parameters in the vestibule:- Suggestion of primitiveness, in palazzo Té- Suggestion of structural failure, in palazzo Té- Manipulating exaggerated order, in palazzo MassimoManiera parameters in the courtyard facades:- Abstraction of elements, in palazzo Massimo- Exaggeration of elements, in palazzo Té- Refinement of elements, in palazzo Massimo- Suggestion of structural failure, in palazzo Té- Suggestion of primitiveness, in palazzo Té- Suggestion of enclosed forces, in palazzo Té- Manipulating exaggerated order, in palazzo TéManiera parameters in the staircase:- Exaggeration of elements- Refinement of elements- Manipulating exaggerated order

In the palazzo plan a recurring theme was the manipulation of the amount of symmetry along the main axis, which is covered by the parameter ‘manipulating exaggerated order’. Both the palazzo Té and palazzo Massimo feature this parameter which indicates a dominant role of the parameter in the manipulation of the plan. Similarly is the exaggeration of the staircase in size which has been illustrated by Michelangelo’s Library and the palazzo Vecchio. It can also be noted that the parameters of the plan are specifically related to a manipulation of solely compositional elements. Besides the manipulation of the exaggerated we encounter the distortion of elements; ideal Renaissance shapes, such as the square and circle, have been transformed into a rectangular and an oval. So there is a distinction between parameters related to a manipulation of the composition and parameters involved with the manipulation of actual elements. Obviously there exists a grey area with parameters that can be applied to both.

Additional maniera parameters with regard to those of the palazzo façade have not been found. This does not mean that we have found all the parameters, but it certainly confirms that we have a solid set. Again, it is important to note that the examples used here have been based on High Renaissance elements because these were considered the standard in the sixteenth century. If we are to interpret this for a universal definition of maniera it is important not to relate it solely to a Renaissance standard, but to conventional elements in contemporary architecture. The provisional definition of the universal concept of maniera was: Maniera is concerned with exceeding the standard, while the essence of the model it rejects is adopted. This definition is still valid and can be applied to the plan, vestibule, courtyard facades, and staircase we discussed here.

CONCLUSIONIn addition to the façade, all of the key aspects of the Italian palazzo have currently

been uncovered. These are an enclosed volume centered on a square courtyard. A Vestibule is located along the main axis between the entrance and the courtyard. In the courtyard four opened up facades of equal dimensions display open loggia supported by classical members; Doric columns on the ground floor and Ionic columns on the piano Nobile. Last, but not least, is a main staircase which is located in one of the side wings of the courtyard. This staircase is used to arrive at the grand apartment on the piano Nobile, and in particular to the most important room of the palazzo; the Grand Salon. These are all present in the High Renaissance standard, as discussed by palazzo Farnese. Through the

46

in-depth analysis of two of the best Mannerist representatives the essential aspects of an attitude have been exposed. Various ways of transforming key aspects of the palazzo design have been distinguished in the plan, vestibule, courtyard, and staircase. Quite a few of the examples demonstrated a tension between the primitive –rusticated elements- and the elegant –polished Renaissance elements-, although the element of surprise seems to play a role of equal importance. Additional maniera parameters with regard to those of the palazzo façade have not been found. This does not mean that we have found all the parameters, but it confirms that we have a solid set. A set which can be divided into parameters related to a manipulation of the composition and parameters involved with the manipulation of actual elements. The preliminary definition of maniera still holds, and can be transformed into a definite definition.

‘Maniera is concerned with exceeding the standard, while the essence of the model it rejects is adopted.’

49

56. palazzo Massimo: curved facade

In the previous two chapters we have elaborated on the genesis and the characteristics of sixteenth century mannerism. The Italian mannerist palazzo exemplified a variety of complexities and contradictions which often result in a compositional tension. An inventory of the various parameters of manipulation has contributed to a universal definition of maniera. However, the Italian palazzo was mentioned earlier as a textbook example of a very strong order which is able to tolerate inconsistencies. It is the main condition for ‘contradiction accommodated’; one of the design approaches in the conceptual framework that was established in the collaborated study on complexity and contradiction in architecture.

Here, various ways of breaking the exaggerated order have been exemplified and it is particularly interesting where and how maniera can be related to this conceptual framework. The characteristics of the ‘standard’ will be discussed as well as the relation of mannerist parameters of manipulation to the concepts in the conceptual framework of complexity and contradiction.

In the first chapter of this document the requirements for contradiction accommodated as one of the two approaches to ‘both-and’ architecture have been discussed. An exaggerated order is able to withstand complexities in the design and is regarded as the single most important condition for this approach. The exaggerated order of the mannerist palazzo, as was demonstrated, is based on the architectural principles of High Renaissance architecture. The style of Bramante, and in particular palazzo Caprini can be regarded as the point of reference for the mannerist palazzo architect. Maniera, as was stated, is concerned with exceeding the standard, and palazzo Caprini has demonstrated quite an extensive architectural standard. It includes a variety of conventional elements each and every one of them with a particular purpose and application. However, the extensiveness of the architectural standard has not been included in the definition of maniera; it solely states that manipulation should be based on a standard. In retrospect to the collaborated study of complexity and contradiction in architecture this standard can be subdivided into three different concepts regardless of their extensiveness. These include an orderly system of some sort that is related to the specific building it is part of, standardization, or convention. Walter Gropius, for instance, employed forms and elements that have been based on industrial vocabulary. He recognized industrial standardization, and the inspiration for windows and stairways came from factory architecture.1 In other words, the standard that is required in order to apply maniera as a universal concept can originate from any system or set of rules. Consequently, if one defines solely a grid system as a ‘standard’, the variety of maniera parameters that can be applied will be limited.

CONTRADICTION ADAPTED VS CONTRADICTION JUXTAPOSEDMannerist manipulation, as was demonstrated, almost always results in some sort of

tension in the composition between the standard and the manipulated. These mannerist contradictions seem to show parallels to the concept of contradiction accommodated which was defined in the collaborated research. However, in this study the concept of contradiction accommodated has been subdivided into two principles; contradiction adapted and contradiction juxtaposed. Contradiction adapted is concerned with the adaptation of an exaggerated order to contextual, functional or technical aspects of the design. Note the emphasis on the word adaptation, which means contrasts have been avoided. We’ve seen for example the curved façade of palazzo Massimo adapting to the curvature of the street; which wasn’t classified as maniera. Contradiction adapted, then, doesn’t feature the beloved violent tensions of mannerist manipulation. Consequently none of the mannerist parameters of manipulation can be related to these contradictions which have often been referred to as the ‘kid glove treatment’.2

1 From Venturi, R. 1977:432 Ibid:56

Complexity and contradiction continued

50

contradiction accommodatedInconsistenties in an exaggerated order

breaking order

contradictionadapted

contradictionjuxtaposed

System

exaggeratedorder

(monumentality)

“Kid Glove treatment” “Shock Treatment”

Standardization

Juxtapositioning techniques:adaptation techniques:

circumstantial distortion

expedient device eventful exception

(VIOLENT) SUPER ADJACENCIES

(VIOLENT) SUPER IMPOSITION

ADJACENCY IMPOSITION

Mannerist manipulation

- abstraction of elements- exaggeration of elements- refinement of elements- distortion of elements- contradicting rhythms- manipulating exaggerated order

Convention

Mannerist parameters

51

Contradiction juxtaposed, on the contrary, is a principle of breaking order by juxtaposing contrasts. Its contradictory relationships become manifest in discordant rhythms, directions, adjacencies and the superimposition of various elements.3 Two important aspects of contradiction juxtaposed can be distinguished; adjacency’s and impositions. Adjacencies are involved with the positioning of elements next to each other, while impositions are related to the positioning of elements on top of each other. Adjacencies and impositions come in various flavors, however, only the most extreme variants result in a tension in the composition. These are violent superadjacencies and violent superimpositions. Most of the mannerist parameters distinguished in the earlier studies relate to these principles; they can be regarded as general means to create violent superadjacencies and violent superimpositions in an architectural composition that has been rooted in a certain standard. These are the mannerist parameters in question:

Abstraction of elementsExaggeration of elementsRefinement of elementsDistortion of elementsContradicting rhythmsManipulating exaggerated order

The aspects of contradiction juxtaposed, in contrast to contradiction adapted, do not refer to some sort of motive. The analyses of maniera palazzi showed a variety of manipulation without a clear external motive, which confirms this notion. However, on several occasions the maniera manipulation is combined with a contextual or functional adaptation. In the façade of palazzo Massimo for instance, the entrance has been positioned exactly opposite to a small street. This adaptation resulted in an entrance that was off center on the particular plot. In order to maintain a symmetrical façade, a considerable part of the facade has been positioned in front of the adjacent building; which creates a violent tension. Here, an adaptation was used as a motive to introduce mannerist manipulations in the composition. It can be characterized as a violent superimposition which is made circumstantial. In other words, some aspects of contradiction adapted can assign a motive to a mannerist transformation.

COMPLEXITY, CONTRADICTION AND AMBIGUITY Most of the maniera parameters have now been implemented in the conceptual

framework of complexity and contradiction. However, some maniera parameters turned out to be a little bit more eccentric. A selective group of mannerist parameters characterize suggestive effects in the architectural composition as a result of mannerist manipulation; for example the suggestion of structural failure in palazzo Té. These parameters differ considerably from the previous maniera parameters because they try to pinpoint illusive characteristics; of course a building which suggests structural failure is not actually falling apart. It is important to note that these parameters use a wider scope, and seem to refer to the composition as a whole.

“It is not enough for the poet to analyze his experience as the scientist does, breaking it up into parts, distinguishing part from part, classifying the various parts. His task is finally to unify experience. He must return to us the unity of experience itself as man knows it in his own experience … If the poet … must perforce dramatize the oneness of the experience.”4

Here, the field of linguistics is introduced in order to try and interpret the aforementioned architectural concepts. The terms complexity, contradiction and ambiguity have in the collaborated study been related to two figures of speech; the metaphor and

3 From Venturi, R. 1977:564 Venturi, R. 1977:20

52

the paradox. These concepts, which have a linguistic origin, might be relatable to the remaining mannerist parameters. The metaphor describes a subject by claiming that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object. The suggestion of primitiveness, one of the remaining mannerist parameters, can be regarded as a metaphor. Rustication in the mannerist palazzo façade was used to express the primitive and represented nature. The paradox on the other hand is an apparent contradiction. These have been often used by the mannerists to suggest surreal tensions in the composition. The suggestion of structural failure, for instance, is a paradox. Some elements in the composition, because of transformations, do not seem to be able to support the rest of the structure. The suggestion of enclosed forces is another paradox. Because of transformations certain elements seem to have lost their structural link in the composition.

- Metaphor: Suggestion of primitiveness- Paradox: Suggestion of structural failure Suggestion of enclosed forces

CONCLUSIONAt last, it is clear how maniera as a universal concept is related to the conceptual

framework of complexity and contradiction in architecture. It is best described as a niche of contradiction accommodated. The required standard for mannerist manipulation can be of various origins, and includes a strong order related to the specific building, convention, and/or standardization. The amount of saturation of the standard will ultimately determine the spectrum of maniera parameters that can be applied to the system. An important aspect of mannerist manipulation is the resultant tension in the composition; therefore maniera is specifically related to the most extreme aspects of contradiction juxtaposed. The remaining maniera parameters use a different scope and refer to the composition as a whole. They reflect on the manipulated composition and characterize the resultant tension. The implementation of maniera in the conceptual framework of complexity and contradiction in architecture has ultimately validated its universal application in architecture.

57. palazzo Té: Suggestion of structural failure

55

The importance of Rome with regard to architecture in the sixteenth and seventeenth century cannot be overestimated. Bramante’s culmination of High Renaissance architecture and the genesis of mannerism are among the key developments home to a city with an immense history of more than two and a half thousand years. No wonder, Robert Venturi used a considerable amount of Roman buildings to illustrate complex and contradictory architecture.1 However, the impressive heritage of Rome brings about difficulties for the contemporary architect as well; as Richard Meier demonstrated only recently. The opening of his Ara Pacis Museum in 2006 should have been cause for celebration, since it was the first major building completed in the historic center of Rome in more than half a century. The museum, however, turned out to be a disappointment for many Romans; it functioned as a catalyst to fuel the architectural debate with regard to the implementation of contemporary architecture in the ancient center of Rome.2

Case studyThe aim of this document was to generate a universal definition of maniera as an

architectural attitude. The following case study, then, is about to introduce a different perspective to the aforementioned architectural debate in Rome. It must be noted, that this case study does not aim to introduce an exclusive design approach; it is rather intended to enrich the existing spectrum. The specific approach of maniera to a (local) architectural standard, as well as the introduction of complexities in the design will most certainly be enriching to the Roman debate.

The previous chapters have provided us with a unique insight in the virtues of High Renaissance palazzo design in Italy. The classical orders of the exterior façade where often subject to mannerist manipulation. Raphael successfully introduced mannerist manipulations in the plan of villa Madame in 1508, and gradually these developments where introduced in the Renaissance palazzi as well. The courtyard facades have not been able to escape from the mannerist architect either, and it was only in the late 1550s that Michelangelo introduced the mannerist staircase. By then mannerism could be identified in four aspects of the Italian palazzo. The exterior façade, the plan, the courtyard facades and the main staircase, in subsequent order, characterize the route a visitor of the palazzo has to travel before he/she will arrive in the most important room of the building; the grand salon. These four aspects can be interpreted as a mannerist palazzo sequence. However, mannerism aims to introduce a certain tension, and it becomes apparent that the tension between exterior façade, plan, courtyard facades and main staircase of the Italian palazzo has yet to be exploited. In the context of complexity and contradiction in architecture this case study aims to introduce mannerist complexities in the Italian palazzo sequence. The exact same points of reference as seen earlier, the High Renaissance palazzi of Bramante and Sangallo the Younger, will be used as a point of reference to design a luxurious single family palazzo dwelling of the present.

Because this case study will also be used to enrich the architectural debate in Rome, it is most obvious that the palazzo dwelling in question is located somewhere in the ancient center of this city. The VII district (Regola) -home to the palazzi Farnese, Spada and Ricci- provides a unique opportunity close to the river Tiber. A plot of approximately 24 by 35 meters, currently inhabited by a bunch of old garages, has been assigned by the local authorities as a possible redevelopment area.

PlanThe case study is located in a capricious Roman urban block which dictates the

rough boundaries of the plot. Despite these rough edges, the plan displays some of the key principles of the Renaissance palazzo. The main axis is located at the center of the plot and subsequently features the entrance, vestibule and courtyard. However, the secondary axis does not meet the main axis at the center of the plot as it would have done in a High Renaissance palazzo. A small street, which faces north of the case study plot, provided the opportunity to maximize the axiality and spatiality of the plan; quite similar to what

1 A scholarship enabled Robert Venturi to stay at the American Academy in Rome from 1954 until 1956. 2 From Ouroussoff, N. 2006

The Italian palazzo of the present

58. isometric overview of case study in the urban block

59. isometric overview of case study in the urban block

56

60. Manipulating the exaggerated order of the plan 1:2000

0 mt 50 mt

Lungotevere dei Sangallo

Ponte Mazzi

ni

57

61. Distortion of the courtyard and residual space or poché as a consequence 1:500

62. Panorama view over the river Tiber

58

63.Main facade of the luxurious Italian palazzo dwelling

59

we have seen in the plan of palazzo Massimo. The secondary axis, then, was transformed in order to fully benefit from this contextual aspect; the exaggerated order has been manipulated. As a result of this action the courtyard plan has been violently superimposed on the adjacent buildings in the urban block. It is no longer perfectly square, but has been distorted into a rectangular shape. Consequently an undefined area between the courtyard of the palazzo and the urban block is left over. This residual space, which is often called poché, is the result of this unresolved tension.

Exterior FaçadeThe exterior façade of the palazzo displays a rusticated base separated from the

superstructure by a flat band that seems to suggest a classical High Renaissance layout. The superstructure consists of three elevations exhibiting the classical orders. However, six of the Doric pilasters in the superstructure have extremely been exaggerated and cut through the bands separating these three elevations. Subsequently, all of the pilasters that haven’t been exaggerated are abstracted. The result is a superstructure that could be interpreted as a large single elevation or as three separate, but seemingly identical, elevations. This results in a classic mannerist tension as was for instance seen in palazzo Té. The pilasters have seemingly been positioned in a tight, but simple, triumphal arch rhythm –A-B-A- most common in High Renaissance architecture. Due to the effects of the local climate the intercolumniations have been widened on four occasions; though the overall symmetry in the façade remains. However, several windows, which have been positioned in a similar –A-B-A- rhythm, have been replaced by blank screens or have been transformed into smaller examples. The manipulation of the windows is of a more violent kind and breaks with the overall symmetry in the façade. This contrasts with the symmetry of the bays and results in a compositional tension.

The aforementioned manipulations have been based on sixteenth century examples; however, the exterior façade has also been subject to tensions regarding the palazzo sequence. The main entrance of a Renaissance palazzo is of a considerable size and prominence; it is happy to communicate with a larger part of the city as for instance your average dwelling; often a public square or major road. The urban block of this case study is located quite a bit lower as the main road along the river Tiber, which it faces. In order to communicate with a larger part of the surroundings the main entrance has been raised by four meters.

A perfectly symmetrical double flight staircase would have been the obvious High Renaissance choice to support the raised entrance; however, it is also an opportunity for the mannerist. The plot has an open sight to the south west where a large bridge crosses the river Tiber. To the north the plot is in close connection to the adjacent urban block; here a grand staircase would be a ridiculous overkill. Again, contextual characteristics form a motive for mannerist manipulation, since one of the two flights has been exaggerated to the detriment of symmetry in the double flight staircase.

The introduction of a grand staircase in front of the main façade results in a tension in the staircase as well as the rusticated base of the palazzo, which has lost its symmetry; it introduces the complexity of the mannerist palazzo sequence. Consequently two routes can be identified; an ordinary route represented by the ‘standard’ flight and an elegant route represented by the exaggerated flight. Subsequently the ‘ordinary’ flight is composed of travertine masonry identical to the rustication of the base and the exaggerated flight has been covered in polished marble, which continues the tension at a different level. The manipulation of the staircase flight can be identified as a violent superadjacency which is made circumstantial. The staircase is then violently superimposed on the palazzo base, which loses its symmetry as well.

Courtyard-facadesThe courtyard, which has been lifted in accordance with the main entrance, has an

elongated shape due to mannerist manipulations of the plan. Consequently two sets of equally proportioned facades can be distinguished rather than the High Renaissance ideal of four identical examples. The two long elevations have been divided into four equally proportioned bays; the short elevations into one single bay. The west courtyard façade has

64.Distortion of the double flight staircase

60

65.Cross section Bb over the luxurious Italian palazzo dwelling

61

obviously the most traditional layout and features two grand loggias on the second and third floor and an opened up ground floor. In fact, three of the facades have an opened up ground floor towards the courtyard. However, on the piano Nobile this number was reduced to two and at the third floor only the west courtyard facade displays an open loggia. Especially in the east façade the closed bays of the second and third floor generate a lot of weight on the abstracted columns of the ground floor. Since this façade is a mere screen between the courtyard and the residual space it might even suggest a certain amount of instability or worse; structural failure.

The sixteenth century mannerists were keen to introduce a certain amount of tensions in the courtyard facades as well, and since the possibilities of the High Renaissance references were limited, they introduced elements of the exterior façade; often rustication. Naturally, there are also other ways to force a tension in the mannerist sequence. We have, for instance, discussed the equally proportioned bays of the exaggerated order in the long courtyard elevations. However, the section AA displays an extra bay of the exact same width at the piano Nobile. Here, the courtyard has been opened up towards the environment due to the manipulation of the exaggerated order, and is able to benefit from the extended axiality of the adjacent street. The loggia, then, imposes the exaggerated order of the courtyard on the triumphal arch rhythm –A-B-A- of the northern exterior elevation. This results in an extreme tension between the systems of both facades. In the context of complexity and contradiction the loggia has been violently superimposed on the exaggerated order of the exterior façade.

Main StaircaseThe High Renaissance staircase was a purely functional object; it consisted of three

ramps with the first short section beginning under the loggia, and was positioned to the side of the courtyard. The importance of the staircase changed when Michelangelo introduced his mannerist staircase in the 1560s. This staircase dominated the small ricetto as if it was designed especially for it; since then staircases have considerably increased in importance and size.

The main staircase in the courtyard of this case study has been exaggerated to its maximum dimensions; a single flight staircase of the exact same size as the courtyard. Consequently the main staircase is the courtyard and vice versa; which results in an extreme tension between the exaggerated staircase and the columns of the courtyard facades. In other words, the staircase has been violently superimposed on the courtyard facades. Additionally, the courtyard staircase is similar in proportion, size, and direction, as the manipulated flight of the double staircase in front of the palazzo. They are able to function individually as well as combined in the mannerist palazzo sequence and pay tribute to one of the most important virtues of mannerist space; the element of surprise.

ConclusionThe luxurious single family palazzo dwelling has been subject to a variety of

mannerist manipulations; some quite similar to the sixteenth century examples, while others tried to exploit different tensions. Instead of recreating an overall tension between the primitive rustication and the polished Vitruvian orders, which was often the theme in sixteenth century palazzi, the aim was to introduce mannerist tension in the palazzo sequence. As a result a manipulated staircase has been imposed on the main exterior façade, a large loggia subsequently imposed the characteristics of the courtyard on the northern exterior façade, and the continuation of a manipulated main staircase has been violently imposed on the courtyard façades. The manipulation of the plan, which has also been of supportive nature to the other aspects of the sequence, generated residual space due to the unresolved tensions in the urban block. This case study, then, is an example of the application of maniera as a universal architectural attitude able to include the local architectural tradition; it emphasizes on the architecture of complexity and contradiction in the Roman debate.

66.Manipulating the exaggerated order of the north facade

67.Exaggeration of the main staircase

62

B B A B A B A

A B A B A B B A B B A B A B A

68.north facade 1:500exaggeration of elementa

69.manipulating exaggerated order in the bays

70.abstraction of elements

71.manipulating exaggerated order of the bays

72. west facade 1:500 exaggeration of elements 73. manipulating exaggerated order in the bays

74. abstraction of elements 75. manipulating exaggerated order of the bays

63

A B A B A B B

76.south facade 1:500exaggeration of elementa

77.manipulating exaggerated order in the bays

78.abstraction of elements

79.manipulating exaggerated order of the bays

80. north courtyard facade 1:500 abstraction of elements 81. south courtyard facade 1:500 abstraction of elements

82. west courtyard facade 1:500 abstraction of elements 83. east courtyard facade 1:500 abstraction of elements

64

84.north facade 1:200

18560 mm 4850 mm

18750 mm

65

10330 mm 20980 mm

85.west facade 1:200

4090 mm

66

86.east facade 1:200

4850 mm 18560 mm

67

87.section AA 1:200

6100 mm 4000 mm 3000 mm 3300 mm 11700 mm 3300 mm

68

88.floor 0 1:200

1. secondary entrance2. storage3. maintenance4. garage5. staff

1.

2. 2. 3. 2. 2.

4.

5.

A A’

B

B’

0 mt 5 mt

69

89.floor 1 1:200

1. main entrance and corridor2. vestibule3. office4. swimming pool5. private garden6. gym7. courtyard8. kitchen and dining9. hall

1.2.3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

3.

0 mt 5 mt

70

90.floor 2 piano Nobile 1:200

1. loggia2. master bedroom3. dressing4. small salon5. hall6. grand salon

1.

6.

1.

2. 3.

3.

4.5.

0 mt 5 mt

71

91.floor 3 1:200

1. hall2. loggia3. office4. cinema5. bedroom/ guest room6. storage

1.

3.

2.

4. 5.

5.

5.

6.

0 mt 5 mt

72

92.Vertical section of bay system 1:20

1. 30 mm travertine on stainless-steel support; 50-180 mm ventilated cavity; 140 mm mineral wool thermal insulation laminated to black fibreglass mat; 280 mm reinforced concrete wall; 10 mm plaster

2. 130 X 240 mm polished travertine lintel; 50 mm rigid foam thermal insulation; vapour barrier; tube profile 100 X 200 mm; 280 mm reinforced concrete wall; 10 mm plaster

3. balustrade 50/10 mm steel flat

4. 20 mm oak floor boards; 3 mm PE film; 65 mm heating screed separating layer; 20 mm impact sound insulation; sealing layer (on ground floor only)

1.

2.

3. 4.

73

93.Layout of exterior facade 1:100

94.Vertical section of exterior facade 1:100

1400 - level

level = 0

4480 + level

5580 + level

8960 + level

13440 + level

17950 + level

18750 + level

74

77

Books- Cafà, V. (2007) Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne di Baldassarre Peruzzi. Marsilio:

Venice- Hopkins, A. (2002) Italian Architecture from Michelangelo to Borromini. London:

Thames & Hudson- Lotz, W. & Heydenreich, L.H. (1974) Architecture in Italy 1400 to 1600.

Harmondsworth: Penguin Books- Murray, P. (1971) Architecture of the renaissance. Milan: Electa; Abrams- Norberg-Schultz, C. (1975) Meaning in western architecture. London: Studio Vista- Pevsner, N. (1946) The Architecture of Mannerism, in The Mint: A miscellany of

literature, art and criticism- Placzek, A.K. (1982) MacMillan encyclopedia of architects. London: Collier

MacMillan - Rowe, C. & Satkowski, L. (2002) Italian architecture of the 16th century. New

York: Princeton Architectural Press- Shearman, J. (1967) Mannerism. London: Peguin Books- Venturi, R. (1977) Complexity and contradiction in architecture. New York:MoMa- Wittkower,R. (1978) Idea and image: Studies in the Italian Renaissance. London:

Thames & Hudson

Articles- Davidovici, I. (2004) Abstraction and artifice. OASE, 65, pp. 100-141- Ouroussoff, N. (2006) An oracle of modernism in ancient Rome. The New York

Times, [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/arts/ design/ 25paci.html?_r=0 [accessed on 24 December 2012]

Images:- 1. Venturi, C. (1977) Complexity and contradiction in architecture, p. 17- 2. Venturi, C. (1977) Complexity and contradiction in architecture, p. 23- 3. Venturi, C. (1977) Complexity and contradiction in architecture, p. 41- 4. Rowe, C. & Satkowski, L. (2002) Italian architecture of the 16th century, p. 43- 9. Shearman, J. (1967) Mannerism, p. 53- 10. Rowe, C. & Satkowski, L. (2002) Italian architecture of the 16th century, p.

112- 14. Cristma (2010) palazzo Té facciata nord. [electronic print] Available at: http://www.nikonclub.it/gallery/index.php?module=listGallery&method=detail&

id=482112 [accessed 25 October 2012]- 15. Unknown (2012) palazzo Maccarani. [electronic print] Available at: http://zloris.blogspot.nl/2012/07/michele-sanmicheli-vita-e-opere.html [accessed

25 October 2012]- 16. Jensens (2008) palazzo Massimo alle Colonnen. [electronic print] Available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Palazzo_Massimo_alle_

Colonne.jpg [accessed 25 October 2012]- 27. Kobayashi-Hillary, M. (2009) Cortile della Cavallerizza nel palazzo di

Mantova. [electronic print] Available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/3/3a/Mantova_Palazzo_Ducale.jpg [accessed 25 October 2012]

- 28. Larmessin, N. de () Baldassare Peruzzi. [electronic print] Available at: http:// imgc.artprintimages.com/images/art-print/nicolas-de-larmessin-baldassare- tommaso-peruzzi-italian-architect-and-painter_i-G-17-1736-TJZ3D00Z.jpg

[accessed 12 Januari 2013] - 29. Unknown () engraving of Michele Sanmicheli. [electronic print] Available at: - 30. Romano, G. () engraving of self portrait. [electronic print] Available at: http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/49/54ad68ba3ff316c0b0513400c1bb7625.

jpg [accessed 12 Januari 2013] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Giulio_Romano_

autoportrait.jpg/220px-Giulio_Romano_autoportrait.jpg[accessed 12 Januari 2013]- 31. Letarouilly, P. M. (1982) Edifices de Rome moderne, PL. 116- 32. Letarouilly, P. M. (1982) Edifices de Rome moderne, PL. 126

Notes and credits

78

- 34. Norberg-Schultz, C. (1975) Meaning in western architecture, p.256- 38. Letarouilly, P. M. (1982) Edifices de Rome moderne, PL. 125- 53. Letarouilly, P. M. (1982) Edifices de Rome moderne, PL. 118- 54. Sailko, I. () Biblioteca medicea laurenziana scalone di Michelangelo. [electronic

print] Available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/ Biblioteca_medicea_laurenziana_scalone_di_michelangelo_04.JPG

[accessed 14 November 2012] - 55. Hopkins, A. (2002) Italian Architecture from Michelangelo to Borromini., p. 58- 57. Marcok () palazzo Te a Mantova. [electronic print] Available at http://upload.

wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Palazzo_Te_Mantova_1.jpg [accessed 20 December 2012]- 62. Unknown (2012) Foto Roma 003. [electronic print] Available at: http://

romamitica.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/foto_roma_0031.jpeg [accessed 08 Januari 2013]