This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 03 May 2015, At: 12:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Architectural Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjae20

Architecture as Drawing
Alberto Perez-Gomez
Published online: 08 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Alberto Perez-Gomez (1982) Architecture as Drawing, Journal of Architectural Education, 36:2, 2-7, DOI:
10.1080/10464883.1982.10758306

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1982.10758306

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 II ARCHITECTURE AS DRAWING

Alberto Perez-Gomez studied architecture in During the Renaissance, architecture became a

Mexico and received a Ph.D. in History and
Theory from the University ofEssex, England.
He is currently an Associate Professor of
Architecture atthe University ofHouston. His
book Architecture and the Crisis of Modern
Science (MIT Press) will appear in July, 1983.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:22 03 May 2015
liberal art because it was perceived to be an
activity of the intellect, akin togeometry and
mathematics. Disegno was a "graceful pre-
ordering of the lines and angles, conceived in
the mind:'6 "Image" entailed imitation (mimesis),
thought, and conception, and was usually asso-

• c
ciated with the newly discovered powers of man
The distance between architectural drawing as amagus.? The "image" was the architec-
• and building has always been opaque and tural idea (from the root la, to see) in the

·0·
D

• seems to be linked to a misunderstanding of
• attempt to cast some light upon this problem,
..
• Vitruvius understood drawing, at best, as a
" "theory" explained "the productions of archi-
a TheinMontorio,
plan of Bramante's Tempietto inthe courtyard ofS. Pietro
Rome. Serlio reproduced this original "idea" inhis
treatise Architettura et Prospettiva (1519), in spite ofthe fact
that only the central structure (El was actually built.
ambiguous. Indeed, much of the confusion
faced by contemporary architects and educators
drawing as atool of reduction. This article is an
examining historical evidence that will lead to
a discussion of prevalent prejudices which
hamper our perception of modern architecture's
true potential.
minor part of the practice of architecture, while
tecture on the principles of prcportton." Alberti,
as we know, was the first to distinguish between
design and structure as the two constituent
parts of archltectue." The opening pages of
De Re Aedificatoria contend that design con-
sists "in a right and exact adapting and joining
together the lines and angles which compose
and form the face of the building:'3 The role
of design was "to appoint tothe edifice and all
its parts their proper places, determinate
number, just proportion and beautiful order."
Design, however, was in Alberti's mind "insep-
arable from matter", so that drawing was per-
ceived as the embodiment of architectural ideas,
distinct from perspectives that represented (in
painting), the reality of a building. 5
strict etymological sense, implying "look,"
"semblance," and "form." The "image" was
also analogous in derivation and original sense
to "species" (from spec-ere, to behold), which
alludes to the original perception of the apriori
order of reality. Thus the architect used images
to embody atranscendental, abstract (geomet-
rical) order, in accordance with the traditional
Aristotelian hierarchy of places.
While the traditional builder, a primeaval poet
(from the Greek ooees. to make), made his
thoughts into building through the implementa-
tion of an operational geometry (in the original
sense of giving human dimensions to external
reality), the Renaissance architect articulated
the necessarily "abstract language" of walls,
openings, and columns in architectural drawing,
by means of plans (ichnographia), elevations
(orthographia), and profiles or sections. In
defining the urban context and its institutions
through "images," the architect enhanced the
traditional sense of place, adding meanings
that spoke to man about himself, about a new
understanding of life as valuable experience,
beyond medieval determinism, but that was
never in contradiction to, or defied, the order
of Creation.
Renaissance architectural drawing was per-
ceived as a symbolic intention to be fulfilled
in the building, while remaining an autonomous
realm of expression. Hence, the building, i.e.,
meaning given in the immediacy of embodied
perception, was always accepted as primary.
Instead of dictating a set of instructions that
were to be actualized by implementing neutral
technological processes, the architect, still
primarily a builder, knew that the "distance"
between idea and matter, between design and
construction, would be reconciled through his
own involvement in building. In Hlarete's

Trattato, for example, Platonic overtones
notwithstanding, the architect was well aware
that the building would change in the course of
construction, and that it could be enriched and
even improved. s The primacy of synesthetic,
embodied perception was recognized. Nothing
can replace the meaning of experiencing a
building, regardless of how sophisticated the
reduction of a building into other mediums
might appear. Phenomenological psychology
teaches us that such embodied experience is
the ground for all other perception of meaning.
In La Pratica della Perspettiva (1569), Daniele
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:22 03 May 2015
Barbaro, the philosopher and mathematician,
friend and patron of Palladio, made some inter-
esting comments about Vitruvius's architectural
"ideas." Barbaro emphatically disagreed with
the claim that linear perspective (perspectiva
artificialis), along with plan (ichnographia) and
elevation (orthographia), was one of the archi-
tectural ideas referred to by Vitruvius in the
second chapter of his Book One. 9 The inter-
pretation of Vitruvius's sciographia remains
problematic, and the most sensible commenta-
tors and translators of the text have always
struggled with the passaae." It is clear that
Vitruvius was not referring to linear perspective,
but rather toa perception of the building's
totality in depth, aview which reconciled the
internal and external orders, the plan and the
elevation. Vitruvius had posited his three
'ideas" as the means of expression of archi-
tectural order or disposition, and Barbaro
contended that sciographia should not be
misunderstood as scenographia, or stage
design, which was the true province of perspec-
tive. Instead, he proposed adding the section or
profile to the plan and to the elevation that
had been recommended by Vitruvius.
For the most part, 17th century architects
continued to distinguish between architecture,
which depended upon geometrical operations
and combinations, and perspective, which acted
as atool of illusionism. 11 Perhaps only in the
early 18th century treatise of Ferdinando Galli-
Bibiena was the task of the architect identified
with that of the stage designer. 12The ambiguity
concerning the use of perspective as a means
to embody an architectural intention is ex-
tremely revealing. During the Renaissance
drawing could be more or less precise, making
sometimes use of tools like grids or scales."
but the drawing was evidently not perceived as
a "picture" of the building, as its reduction, or
1 I • II 0 I . C 0 '( D O.
II H
as a neutral collection of information for its
construction. The road was certainly open for
the transformation of the builder into an effi-
cient designer, capable of controlling practice
through prescriptive methods and precise draw-
ings. But the transformation did not happen
overnight. Perhaps more importantly, this
historical evidence shows that the perception
of theory as method, and of drawing as its tool
of reduction, should not be taken for granted.
Only modern architects after Durand have
assumed such a role of drawing as primary
and unquestionable.
Toward the end of the 18th century Gaspard
Monge developed his descriptive geometry,
which became a basic discipline of Durand's
school, the Ecole Polytechnique. The problem
of describing an object through its projections
on three planes had been aconcern of archi-
tects before Monge, but the invention of
descriptive geometry was more than a systema-
tization of known methods. Descriptive geometry
opened the way for afunctionalization of the
"lived world," l.e., for the inception of non-
Euclidean geometries. It became an effective (ir..
instrument of power, and an absolutely essential
tool of precision during the IAdustrial Revolu- II Serlin's illustration for a perspective construction. His treatise,
tion. The original architectural ideas were Architeltura et Prospettiva (1519), was the firstbook on archi-
transformed into universal projections that tectural theory to include a chapter on perspective.
could then, and only then, be perceived as
reductions of buildings, creating the illusion of
drawing as a neutral tool that communicates
unambiguous information, like scientific prose,
Don't we even today see architectural educators
stand in front of projects in a review and ignore
architectural ideas, pretending instead to
criticize "bUildings," assuming that it is pos-
sible to predict their objective meaning?14
Although seemjngly reacting against the "engi-
neers" of the Ecole Pplytechnique, professors
and students at the Ecole des Beaux Arts
regarded drawing as an implicit manifestation
of descriptive geometry. This understanding
has always been taken for granted and makes
for acrucial and extremely complex problem.
The depth and extension of its ramifications
can be grasped by remarking its connection
to what Edmund Husserl described as the
crisis of European science," and to the incep-
tion of non-Euclidean geometries in the early
19th century.
. . Cylindrical anamorphosis of S. Francis, from F. Niceron's
Curious Perspective (1638), showing the use of geometrical
perspective as a tool of illusionism.

"figure" had its own properties and was per-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:22 03 May 2015
a Section of Guarini's church of S. Lorenzo inTurin, from his
treatise Archiletlura Civile (1737). Guarini's architecture
depended on the combination ofEuclidean ligures for its beauty
and its stability.
II
Euclidean geometry, as both Ortega y Gasset
and Cassirer have pointed out, rests upon
intuition. 16 It is "precise" because its origins
are imprecise, because its laws reside in the
realm of experience. The substitution of a
purely optical reality for the primary synesthetic
reality of our being in the world (i.e., the substi-
tution of perspectiva naturalis, the Euclidean
laws of optics, for perspectiva artificialis) may
have started during the Renaissance, but was
not fully accomplished until Victor Poncelet,
drawing on Monge's work, wrote his treatise on
projective geometry in 1822. For Euclid each
ceived as irreducible. Geometry worked pre-
cisely because parallel lines never met."
Even during the "Age of Reason," the embodied,
tactile perception of atranscendental Nature
had primacy over Visual reduction or perspec-
tivism as asource of truth and meaning.
When perspective had lost its symbolic content
to become the "truth of reality," the architects
of the Enlightenment abandoned it as an "idea:"
the Baroque vista gave way tothe English
garden. Almost acentury later, Poncelet used
perspective theory to refute the postulate of
parallel lines and give geometry the "generality
of algebra."18 Poncelet declared that
systems of parallel and converging lines were
identical, and that the lived world was homolo-
gous with the infinite geometrical universe of
homogeneous space." Thus all Euclidean
figures lost their specificity and the world (le.,
its geometry) was reduced to aformal system
of transformations.
The modern belief that drawing is simply a
reduction of abuilding has, therefore, enormous
implications. Descriptive geometry made build-
ing science possible. For the first time the
architect was able to dictate to a mason or
carpenter a series of operations through work-
ing drawings or precise detail designs, without
having to be involved in the "craft" of "building"
itself. 20 This is, of course, a precondition of
contemporary methods of production in architec-
ture and civil engineering. But this modern
prejudice isalso shared by most architects
who regard design as obliquely related to art.
Durand was the first to advocate the methods
of descriptive geometry in architectural design.
In his lectures at the Ecole Polytechnique, he
declared that no building could fail to please
as long as it fulfilled in an efficient and eco-

nomic manner the pragmatic requrements for
shelter. This amounted to a denial of symbolic
order as the crux of architecture. For Durand,
the building had to provide maximum pleasure
with minimum means. In his Pr~cis, myth and
metaphysical concerns were excluded from
architectural theory, and architecture became a
game of formal combinations facilitated by the
grid of his "mechanism of composition."21
Thus, design was, in essence, a logic devoid of
absolute meaning, in which only the syntax of
style could be controlled by reason.
Modern "professional architects" have taken
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:22 03 May 2015
for granted Durand's understanding of "design"
as reduction. ConseQuently, they continue to
create mute and uninteresting functional build-
ings. One follows from the other: the means are
not neutral. What is inessential, in fact, is
whether the material skin of a building isgothic,
classical, a m~/ange of styles, or a denial of
styles. The Beaux Arts tradition was as rooted
in functionalism as the Bauhaus, if one under-
stands functionalism as areductionistic
attitude, whereby architecture is the function
of a combination of variables, l.e.,the mathe-
matization of human needs and values.22 This
issue is more profound than "post-modern"
architects seem to suspect. And although the
belief in a one-to-one correspondence between
the drawing and the building is ludicrous, con-
fus ion has prevailed.
The true architect's concern for meaning cannot
be properly embodied in a draWing whose
explicit or implicit role is the reduction or
"picture" ofa building. Drawing must serve as
the expression of a symbolic intention in the
form of architectural ideas. Because very few
architects in the last two hundred years have
made their own buildings, the importance of
drawing has been emphasized. Architects have
been either unable to build a symbolic order,
or have intentionally avoided building because
a) they did not comprehend their primordial role
as makers of a symbolic order, hence their
willingness to accept the irrelevant task of
filling the world with sterile and inhuman struc-
tures dictated by consumerism or economics;
and b) because society isapparently not inter-
ested in a symbolic order. Individuals seem
capable of postponing ad infinitum their press-
ing existential problems, living instead under
the illusion of absolute rationality, without
sight of objectives, and focusing only on the
efficiency of means.
II
The rejection of reductionism in architecture
must bring about arecognition of the value of
theoretical projects as drawing (or model):
projects which, by definition, Question the
possibility of their execution in aprosaic world.
Prior to Piranesi, Boullee and Ledoux, this
notion of atheoretical project would not have
made sense. During the 18th century, reason
became powerful but never excluded myth. The
natural philosophy of Newton, prototype of all
knowledge, was ultimately motivated by the
possibility of the revelation of God through a
better understanding of His works. 23 Art, poetry,
and science therefore, were not contradictory.
All disciplines were envisioned agailist the
same epistemological horizon dependent on a
belief in aharmonious, rational cosmos, re- .... - ....
vealed to man through the perception of Nature.
._~
-,
After Durand, the reconciliation between form
and content became the paradigmatic problem
for architects concerned with meaning. Abso-
I I - '-
lute validity of anyone style was Questioned
and architecture was reduced to its pragmatic L--
I
function, that is, the making of material
commodities. The architect was thus forced to II Atypical plate from A. Desgodetz's Les Edifices AntiQues de
choose between art and science, between the Rome (1682) illustrating the fullarchitectural "idea" of a
false extreme of an absolute objectivity Roman building.
(universal mathematical reason) or that of an
absolute subjectivity (personal poetic myth).
The history of Western architecture in the last
two hundred years is thus a description of how
architects have tried to come to terms with
this issue. Clearly, an architecture gnawed down
to its bones, one that speaks only about tech-
nological process and not about human values
has often been deemed unacceptable, by both
architects and society at large. True, architects
have often added "referential" ornament to
their buildings, trying to make their utilitarian
and deterministic structures more "human,"
but the success of such buildings has been, at
best, partial: witness the irreconcilable contra-
dictions evident from Labrouste's BiblioteQue
Ste. Genevieve to post-modernism. If the solu-
tion is not the abstract order of technology, it is
also not embellishment.
Meaning, we must remember, isgiven in per-
ception; it is not a product of "association."
Phenomenological studies have shown that
meaning is not primarily or solely an intellectual
constnct.s- Architecture isan order that
addresses our ambiguous, finite, human reality,
it is not merely avehicle for scientific "truths."
 ~.~.
The paradox here isthat architecture, by defini-
tion, is both abstract, and a mimesis of atrans-
cendental reality. But modern man has generally
denied myth and poetry as the primordial reve-
lation of reality. We have become insensitive
FJO.1.21c FIO.1.2.td
and blind, preferring the logical explanation of
science simply because it is the source of tech-
nological power. Durand, for one, ridiculed the
traditional concept of the column as the body of
man, pointing out that it was nothing more than
a cylinder of matter. Our modern world is super-
FIG.1.2.1e
ficially rational and deterministic, embodying
FIG.1.2.1(
technological utopia; it constitutes no place for
humanity. Our cities represent chaos rather than
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:22 03 May 2015
II The orthogonal planes and Quadrants ofdescriptive geometry order, our structures restrict freedom rather
which allow fora reduction ofthree-dimensional reality into a
system ofcoordinates and their manipulation independently than enhance it.
from intuition, from R.G. Robertson's Descriptive Geometry
(by courtesy of Sir Issac Pitman and Sons Ltd.), In view of all this it is crucial to recognize the
role of drawing as the embodiment of architec-
tural ideas. In a manner of speaking, particularly
after Durand, the drawing is the architecture,
a priviledged vehicle for expressing architec-
tural intentions: intentions that are poetic in
aprofound traditional sense, as poesis, as
- symbol making. Such architectural drawings
- "It '"
II J, . bl,tT;- may assume the character of poetic images
generated by a metaphor, by a program that
embodies an understanding of dwelling, like
John Hejduk's projects for Venice. Or they may
criticize architectural ideas and the abstract
-~ elements of architecture (e.g., plans, sections,
~L~I:~~-
elevations, or projections). This isthe point of
f~ "
Daniel Libeskind's Micromegas. The perception
l:::rr T:-:-:7±t of such theoretical projects as self-referential
1::::1. J.:JS:.L:£ can only occur if the reality of architecture past
and present is assumed to be the banal re-
a Plate from Durand's Precis showing the grid of his "mechanism
ofcomposition" and his method of combinations.
ductionism and pragmatic materialism that I
have criticized.
The Vitruvian "ideas" cannot be implemented
today as if they had always been anonymous
projections in a conceptual space, as if descrip-
tive geometry and our perspective world had
always existed. Nor can the modern architect
deny the power of abstraction or ignore the end
of the traditional world. This paradoxical power
has led the modern "architect" to an effective
technological domination of building, to irrele-
vant formal manipulations and to city planning.
Nonetheless, our rationality is also part of our
humanity, as well as the paradigm of modern
art: the necessary means for revealing atruly
modern architecture.
The technological world-view can easily deny
the necessity of architecture as a symbolic
order. But human reality is ambiguous. Irrespec-
tive of how long modern man may wish to post-
pone coming to terms with Being, with the
meaning of his existence, and regardless of
how long he may wish to conceal emptiness
with the illusion of progress, he must ultimately
confront his limits: the dilemma of his finite
life and his power to embody divinity. The
perception of meaning remains universal, and
man's humanity endures through the crisis.
What then must the architect's attitude be?
Traditionally, the abstract Euclidean order put
forward by the architect possessed an inter-
subjective dimension. Today, however, abstrac-
tion in art is often identified with hermetic,
solipsistic intentions. Although it is true that
even numbers (the epitome of the ideal) are
necessarily "colored," and that most specific
phenomena are taken in perception within a
framework of categories, in the last two hun-
dred years architects concerned with meaning
have had to take to the extremes. This is,
indeed, a condition derived from the crisis itself,
and carries with it the dangers implied in exces-
sive abstraction (art for artists, excessive
originality, criticism rather than poetry) or in its
denial (art for society, excessive referentiality,
communication rather than poetry). The tradi-
tional middle ground where the ideal and the
real, the intellectual and the bodily articulations
were reconciled, seems today incapable of
being the source and origin of architectural
symbolic intentions. Man is either too insensi-
tive or too humane.
The architect seems condemned to make either
poetic (perhaps romantic) drawings or critical
(perhaps senseless) ones. The risk is the pro-
duction of either screaming, an excessive
dependence on context (the embodied world of
man), and an unwarranted faith in the possibility
of meaning-in-the-world, or babbling, an exces-
sive independence from context and an unwar-
ranted faith in the impossibility of meaningless
abstraction. When a romantic or surreal project
is imagined in the world, often its intended
meaning is lost. Does "collage" make sense in
our contradictory urban environments? Is poetry,
in fact, still possible after Hiroshima? Isn't
metaphor anachronistic or, at best, irrelevant
now that the ultimate referential ground, the
cosmos, has been eliminated? By the same
token, a drawing about ideas runs the risk of
 Notes Additional Suggested Readings

becoming a hermetic language, like much serial
music or abstract painting, which is removed
from the primary realm of experience, from the
shared world in which meaning is grounded.
Regardless of such boundaries, these two alter-
natives seem to be the only way of making
architecture. Ironically, these are the very
alternatives explored by modern art, but which
are seldom understood by architects. By
accepting the status quo of the architectural
practitioner and the "reality" of drawing as a
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:22 03 May 2015
1 Vitruvius Pollio (Marcus) The Ten Books on ArChitecture
Dover Publications (New York) 1960, P.5.
2 Alberti, Leone Battista De Re Aedificatoria Tiranti (London)
1955, P.2.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Compare De Re Aedificatoria with Alberti's On Painting and
On Sculpture (London) 1972.
6 Alberti, De Re Aedificatoria, P.2.
7 See, forexample, Agrippa Cornelius De Occulta Philosophia
(Antwerp) 153l
8 Averlino, Antonio (II Filarete) Tratatto diArchitettura II
Polifilo (Milan) 1972, P. 504.
9 Barbaro, Daniele LaPratica della Perspettiva Arnalda Forni
(Sala Bolognese) 1980, PP. 129-130.
Bannan, John The Philosophy of Merleau-Ponty Hartcourt,
Brace and World (New York) 1967.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg Reason in the Age of Science MIT Press
(Cambridge, Mass.) 1981
Holt, Elizabeth A Documentary History ofArt Doubleday (New
York) 1957, vol. 3.This volume contains translated excerpts
from the primary sources quoted inthe article.
IVins, William Artand Geometry Dover (New York) 1964.
Heidegger, Martin Basic Writings Harper and Row (New York)
1977, chapters VI, VII and VIII.

referential tool, one rejects architecture's place
as a primordial cultural institution, as the
embodiment of a pre-intellectual order whose
task is nothing more and nothing less than the
perpetuation of culture and its coherence.
Our collective illusion is a reality that we take
for granted, a Platonic world devoid of mystical
connotations that Plato himself would have
repudiated. Can reality simply be our technolog-
ical non-sense? This was the Question already
addressed by Piranesi, Boullee, and Ledoux
during the 18th century. Particularly the two
French architects were explicit in their rejection
of mathematical reason as the structure of
architectural theory.25 Betraying an authentic
existential anguish, they struggled totransform
theory into an explicit metaphysics that ex-
plained the meaning of architecture through a
poetic discourse. Their drawings constituted a
set of theoretical projects that they assumed
to be true architecture, in opposition to their
actual buildings. Not surprisingly, both archi-
tects felt that architecture was deeply akin to
painting. Thus architecture became primarily the
making of the ilrawing (or the model), the same
poetic act that has always magically revealed
the truth of reality: a process similar to the
gnostic search for truth by the enlightened
architect. The true architect must pursue either
of two parallel alternatives in the hope of find-
ing a point of reconciliation: he must be a born
gnostic or a born phenomenologist. And when
the architecture of the modern world is built,
it will be (as it has been in exceptional cases)
founded upon the convergence of these two
perspectives: afuture overlapping of poetry
and criticism. •
10 See, forexample, Fabio Calvo Ravennate's manuscript, Merleau-Ponty, Maurice The Primacy ofPerception Northwestern
printed in Vitruvio e Raffaello Officina Edizioni (Rome) 1975, University Press (Evanston) 1964, chapters 2 and 5.
PP.78-79.
11 See Guarini, Guarino Architettura Civile II Polifilo (Milan) Merleau-Ponty, Maurice Sense and Non-Sense Northwestern
1968, P. 242 fl. The first edition ofthis work was published University Press (Evanston) 1964, chapters 1 and 4.
inTurin, 1737.
12Galli-Bibiena, Ferdinanda L'Architettura Civile Benjamin Vycinas, Vincent Greatness and Philosophy Martinus Nijhofl
(The Hague) 1966.
Blom (New York) 1971. First published in Parma, 1711.
13 This is clear in Filarete's treatise and insome ofAntonio
ca Sangallo's drawings forSt. Peter's. See Thoenes, Christof
"St. Peter's: First Sketches," Daidalos 5, (September
1982), P. 81 .
14I discuss this extensively inArchitecture and the Crisis of
Modern Science, Part IV.
15Husserl, Edmund The Crisis of European Sciences and
Transcendental Phenomenology Northwestern University
Press (Evanston) 1970; and L'Origine de la Geometrie
Presses Universitaires de France (Paris) 1974.
16Ortega y Gasset, Jose LaIdea de PrinCipio en Leibniz Revista
de Occidente (Madrid) 1967, vol. I and Cassirer, Ernst The
PhJiosophy of Symbolic Forms Yale University Press (New
Haven) 1972. vol. 2, Part II.
17 Even geometricians found it impossible to prove the limita-
tions of Euclid's postulate during the 18th century. See
Saccheri, G. Euclides ab omni naevo. English translation
(London) 1920.
18The basic principle of Poncelet's projective geometry had.
been discovered inthe 17th century by Girard Desargues.
See hisOeuvres (Paris) 1864. Desarques's work was never
understood by hiscontemporaries.
19Poncelet, Jean-Victor Traite des Proprietes Projectives des
Figures (Paris) 1822.
20 This is very clear in Rondelet, Jean Traite TMorique et
Pratique dell'Artde Batir 3 vols. (Paris) 1830.
21 Durand, Jacques-jncelas-tous Precis de LeGons
d'Architecture 2 vols. (Paris) 1819.
22This understanding offunctionalism as an exciusive charac-
teristic of modern architecture is discussed extensively in
my forthcoming book. Toward the mid-19th century Gottfried
Semper would actually use the analogy ofan equation to
illustrate the process of solving an architectural problem.
23 See Gay, Peter The Enlightenment AnInterpretation 2 vols,
Wildwood House (London) 1973, vol. 2, PP. 126-166.
24 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice Phenomenology of Perception
Routledge and Kegan Paul (London) 1970, see especially
parts I and II.
25 Bcullee, Etienne-Louis Architecture. Essai surI'ArtMiroirs
de L'Art (Paris) 1968; and Ledoux, Claude-Nicholas
L'Architecture Consideree sous IeRapport de L'Art des
Moeurs et de la Legislation vol. I (Paris) 1804.