User talk:Giano/19th century architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Why are we here?

There is a lot to sort out with the whole of the 19th century architectural Wikipedia pages. I am wondering if we did not ought to have a Category: Neo-Renaissance architecture so they can all be sorted out, then we can see exactly what we have, already we have Neo-classical architecture and Greek revival (much if not exactly the same thing). Today I discovered American Renaissance a completely new style to me. I'm wondering what else we have in the 19th century department, and what pages should perhaps be merged. Any ideas? Giano | talk 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Enlarge
If I were doing this at home I'd clean off the dining room table [after getting an "Okay" from my domestic partner] and spread everything that I want to look at out on it, let it sink in, mull it over for about a week, and then reassemble it. Which is, i suspect, pretty much what Giano is suggesting. So, what is wikipedia's version of my dinning room table? Carptrash 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
PS the bed in the guest room works too, especially if you don't have a guest.

Right! that is the idea behind this page, a big sort of what is what, and an attempt to seek some order and clarification of 19th century styles, and what we understand by them, on our respective corners of the globe.


[edit] Discussion

I think we need to start by making a list of pages that are doubling up. Giano | talk 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is actually the guest bed [15 minutes ago - I could NOT get clearence for the dinning room] but sure, let's do it. What I'm going to do first is generate a list of American architectural styles that span the 19th Century. I'll double bracket them, see what shows up in blue and go from there. Carptrash 18:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This list is basically from Marcus Whiffen's American Architecture from 1780, a good place [opinion] to begin. I suspect that there might be an Atlantic rift here since some of these terms mean different things in different places, and this will definately NOT be an attempt to grab all these terms and Americanize them. However, since one of my goals in wikipedia is to present the American built environment to the whole world, this will be where I'm coming from and where I'm headed. Carptrash 18:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added some more notes. Remove them or re-edit them at will. (Wetman)


Architectural revivals : the phenomenon, C18-C20, incl. paras. introducing each next-level revival movement

  • Gothic Revival incl. Gothick (Fonthill)
    • High Victorian Gothic incl. all local flavors
    • Reformed Gothic incl. all "modern Gothic" of C19
  • Beaux-Arts Architecture (scholarly vs picturesque approach to Classicism and Gothic revival)
  • Second Renaissance Revival
  • Georgian Revival


  • Jacobethan Revival or Tudor Revival (Tudorbethan) or Collegiate Tudor (it's gotta be here somewhere)

might as well end here for now - 'cause I've been called AND chosen (see Yes, wikipedians DO have lives. Carptrash 18:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the list

Are you suggesting we have a page for each of these? IMO several equate to the same thing and could easily be covered on the same page. Do you want American interpretations of a style treated differently from other interpretations? In my view America generally just followed the European trend, but added it's own minor idiosyncrasies as it went along - in the same fashion as architecture developed over the rest of the English speaking world (not I do not say British Empire!]] elsewhere to suit climate and materials locally available. The problem s I see it is that America (no offence intended here) then decided to label styles differently to elsewhere and claim them as its own, when in fact in very similar fashions these styles were occuring elsewhere. Giano | talk 19:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a lumper at Wikipedia rather than a splitter: let's not get blinded by the Victorian splitting of style designations: Renaissance revival should characterize changing approaches to Italian/French/Antwerp Renaissance modes and their "meaning" or resonance. There should be a trunk article Architectural revivals with succinct summaries of the "umbrella" articles, like Gothic revival, Renaissance revival etc. I hope to see these articles eventually nested one within another, cued with the familiar heading Main article... that links "downwards" to a more concentrated and detailed sub-article, and also with an unfamiliar guide "upwards", cued with a heading For general context, see.... Giano suggests a list of pages that are "doubling up": let's add them to the above list as we think of them. Carptrash, 1860 is not a universal watershed: may we remove the date headings and "lump"? Giano, American Renaissance is more of a cultural movement of the Gilded Age: it includes the City Beautiful movement that is a parallel to the English Garden City and is expressed in Beaux-Arts architecture. --Wetman 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia too -> international not just US please

Hi - I have joined this discussion through the Italianate talk page. As per User:Giano's comments above, these styles were happening elsewhere. In Australia, styles of the Victorian period (circa 1840 - circa 1890) have been described as: Victorian Georgian, Victorian Regency, Victorian Egyptian, Victorian Academic Classical, Victorian Free Classical, Victorian Filligree, Victorian Mannerist, Victorian Second Empire, Victorian Italianate, Victorian Romanesque, Victorian Academic Gothic, Victorian Free Gothic, Victorian Tudor, Victorian Rustic Gothic, Victorian Carpenter Gothic. My source is: Apperly, Richard, Robert Irving, Peter Reynolds (1989). A pictorial guide to identifying Australian architecture, Paperback, 1994, Sydney,Australia: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-207-18562-X..

As per User:Carptrash I have tried placing [[ ]] to see what red and blue links we have - all red at present but perhaps need to redirect some - Apperly, Irving and Reynolds refer to all styles from this period with the preface "Victorian".

In Australia, as in the US, the nineteenth century was a time of great building activity. There was not much beforehand, there was significant prosperity and population growth from immigration. New settlements, towns and cities were being built and associated public buildings - these buildings are very much present in our built environment today. In constructing these buildings, the use of different styles gave instant clues as to the buildings purpose and aspitrations. In Australia, you are unlikely to find a court house in the gothic style and similarly most churches are not in the classical style and certainly not with egyptian embellishments.

Labels can in part be fixed by disambiguation and clear paragraphs. It seems to me important to understand nineteenth century architecture as a whole as well as by country or continent. Australia definitely needs to be understood in the context of Britain in particular and to a lesser extent Europe and the US.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (Edit conflict so haven't yet read User:Wetman's comments)

  • Australia will not be left out, I promise you, but Oh hell! do you really have all thos styles on Oz? I have done a few pages on NZ Victorian architects and working on a William Wardell page so I know buildings in some of the styles you are talking about, most of them can be fully equated to a similar other styles already here such as Tudorbethan, Jacobethan. A lot of the styles you mention seem to be at odds with their own names: Victorian Regency for instance must be, what we Europeans call Biedermeier or something very similar, so we have to decide I think what can be equated to what, and then adding a paragraph or merge describing the variation and differences of name according to country, and then of course the neme of the page; alternatively we could lump similar styles under a category, with a master category 19th century architecture, or something like that. I think Wetman's idea of a page Archtitectural revival as the "lead page" to direct to others is a winner IMO. Giano | talk 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The book I am using as a source is a "comprehensive survey" and I guess they have to fill in 290 pages somehow and they have an awful lot of examples that they distinguish! The authors are architectural historians and academics - I think the names are reasonably authorative in an Australian context - however, I am more than content with redirects and sub sections dealing with the distinctions and I agree that the naming seems similar to other styles. By way of example, the distinction between Victorian Rustic Gothic and Victorian Carpenter Gothic is that the former is a domestic style, also called Rural Gothic with pattern book designs imitating 'Old English' domestic architecture - eg the cottage orné. The latter is an ecclesiastical style for when timber was the main building material - it is described as a conventionalised and simplified form of the Victorian Gothic style.
I guess what I am hoping for are articles dealing with the worldwide picture to link Australian architectural styles to and place the Australian developments into context.
I think the overall article should be time based - ie 19th century architecture or similar. I am not sure that Architectural revival as an article title rings quite right notwithstanding that many of the styles were revivals of building styles of previous ages. The zeitgeist was to revive former building styles and in doing so to convey ideas about the significance and purpose of the buildings, but there was more going on.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I turn my back on you guys

for just a minute and come back to find the place filled with Australians. Well, as long as they, and not us Americans, bring the beer, I guess it's okay.

Let's come to a quick agreement here about a starter page called Architectural revival styles. I think that there was very little revivaling going on before the Victorian Age, but if "Victorian" or "19th Century" needs to be in the title, so be it. I thing just Architectural revival is a bit too stark.

If Italianate means something different in different places then I am going to probably want a separate American page for it. It it is what they call Victorian Something Or Another in Australia, then that probably needs a separate page too, though probably linked. My issue is with who is going to be using this information that we are putting together. I am tailoring my approach to folks in the US as well as in the rest of the world, who wish to know about American architectural history.

The 1860 date that I used was one that the book I was basing my categorizing from used. I feel no particular attachment to it. and Ditto on what Wetman said about American Renaissance. It is nothing that we need to worry about here. Carptrash 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Why do you think Italianate means something different in different places? To me it is significant that the same style is turning up half way around the world at the same time...
The Palladian architecture style could be said to be a revival style which predates the nineteenth century and is not the only pre nineteenth century revival, there are revivals also throughout the twentieth century, hence my objection to Architectural revival styles as an article title--A Y Arktos\talk 00:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (the only Australian here at present and I like European or Indian beer better :-) )
Some one showed up at the Italianate discussion with what I took to be a different definiton of the term in Russia. I would also like to figure out how best to present the reality that the same style showed up in different places in the world at the same time. As far as revivals go, it seems to me that a large chunk of the Rennaissance was a revival - so, yes, perhaps it is best to have a cover term that is more specific. However if we go with Victorian we risk ruffling the feathers of some Continental. Perhaps 19th Century revival architecture? kinda wordy, but it would be the place to send everyone who searches for Italinate or Gothic Revival or Greek revival? Is that the idea? Carptrash 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC) how about Mexican beer as a compromise?
Sometime in "user space" today I will write a short page (thta we can all edit) User Giano:19th century architecture (we can change the name later if needed) in three sections Gothic based, Renaissance based, and classical based, we can then assemble all the 19th century styles we can find - then at least we can see what we have (I know Renaissance drew on the classical first, but I think it evolved far enough not to be termed a revival form!) When we know what we have then we can argue about what is comparable to what. It doesnt matter how many architectural pages we have (allthough stubs could be lumped) so long as someone seeking say: "Italianate" can be directed to ALL relevant information, which is not happening at the moment. Giano | talk 08:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, I've written an intro to a lead page, and moved us all to it's talk page, so we are all on one place - where I think we can assemble the styles we have. .I think it would be tidier and easier to delete all styles that are red-links, it's going to be a complicated enough job as it is. I see this project at the moment as more an attempt to consolidate and index what we have rather than attempt to write new pages (at the moment ayway). Please edit at whim, it's only intended to be a start to the page, but let's try and keep the lead page pretty general rather than comcentrating on one particular country, the individual pages listed can do that. Giano | talk 11:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I will second the idea

of leaping into this with as little red ink as possible. I was thrilled to find my copy of Nineteenth Centruy Architecture in Britain by Turner, so I'll not only have opinions on American stuff. One other thing. How are we going to define 19th Century? Picture 2 in my book [I don't actually read the books, I just look at the pictures] is Fonthill Abbey, Wiltshire, (1796-99). Probably any style that is used anywhere in the 19 th C is fair game? Carptrash 14:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead image you mean? I suppose (said reluctantly)it will have to be Gothic, as that is most people's idea, but what about one of Waddesdon Manor which somehow encapsulates the lot - Image:Waddesdon, towers.gif Renaissance and Gothic, the whole faux thing, - conservatory, mansard roofs, turrets, towers, need I go on (yeah, sorry I did take it!) Giano | talk 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
then you will not mind if I download it and try to get it off the hillside? Anyway, yes that looks like a week or two of picky, picky, picky Carptrash 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is what 20 minutes of playing with Waddesdon will do. it was a good idea, but didn't work. You must be using Europixels or something. Where were we? Carptrash 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Nineteenth century" or "Victorian" prefixes don't fit the Gothic Revival sweep from Fonthill Abbey to Harkness Tower. If we were to add the revival categories Classical and Picturesque: doesn't that cover all? Can we think of local American or Australian or British style designations as flavors of broader movements and write about them with that PoV in mind? Can you all see where each of the Australian Victorian styles would fall under the broader categories? American ones should too. I tweaked the schema above: how is it coming, do you think? please re-edit it! --Wetman 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we are thinking along the same lines, one subject but explaining local differences and the reasons these differences occured. We still though have to deal with the doubles like: Greek Revival, Neo-Grec and Egyptian Revival if ever there was a case for 1 page (any volunteers..Mr Wetman?). There is a case here [1] for moving "Italianate" into Neo-Renaissance do we have any views on that subject? Giano | talk 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good start to the article

however I made my first edit on the first few words because 19th century architecture is not just rehashed revival stuff. The Chicago School, for example, was something completely new. I am sure there are other non-American examples too. Carptrash 21:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC) After thought. Do we need to explain all our edits here or not?

  • No, no need to explain anything - we can all demand explanations if we don't agree. Giano | talk 12:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template for navigation

[[Template:{{{name}}}|v]] • [[Template talk:{{{name}}}|d]] • [{{fullurl:Template:{{{name}}}|action=edit}} e]
19th-century architecture
Neo-Classicism: Directoire and Empire • Regency • Egyptian Revival • Greek Revival and Neo-Grec
Neo-Romanesque and Byzantine Revival: Richardsonian Romanesque • Russian-Byzantine • Muscovite Revival
Gothic Revival: High Victorian Gothic • Reformed Gothic • Chateauesque • Muscovite Gothic • Indo-Saracenic
Neo-Renaissance: Second Empire • Italianate • Tudorbethan • Jacobethan
Neo-Baroque and 18th century: Beaux-Arts • Queen Anne • Georgian Revival • Colonial Revival

I believe we should put a navigational template at the bottom of every article linked from this page. Probably we should post a request for such a template on Wikipedia:Requested templates. Above is my preliminary version. I don't include here Biedermeier, American Empire (style) and other terms which, to the best of my knowledge, are applied to architecture seldom if at all.

Wikipedia coverage of 19th-century architecture definitely needs a major overhaul. Many articles are started by those guys who live in the States or Australia and are pretty sure that their architecture owes nothing to Old Granny Europe. That's why our entries on Greek Revival and Beaux-Arts architecture will induce a casual reader to believe that these styles were practiced in the United States alone. Both need to be rewritten thoroughly from a European perspective.

Then, there are problems with frivolous nomenclature. Self-devised designations still abound: what is Italianate, for instance, but another word for Neo-Renaissance? I agree with Wetman that we lack a general article on Revivalist architecture, but I would not classify Neo-Renaissance and Neo-Baroque as revivals. If they are better known as Neo-Renaissance and Neo-Baroque, so be it. Talking about revivals, I'm not sure what is the name for the style of such structures as Victoria Memorial and Gateway of India (Neo-Mughal?) and whether it belongs to the history of Western architecture at all. I included it in the template as Indo-Saracenic. --Ghirla -трёп- 22:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I really like the template. I think it will be an easy way to show people around the architectural pages without confusion. Incidentally Why do we have to post a request at Wikipedia:Requested templates can't we just use the one Ghirla has made?
  • I don't think Tudorbethan should be under Neo-Renaissance.
  • Biedermeier is an architectural style (at least according to the article here - which uses an illustration which I would call Second Empire to prove the point!
    The Britannica speaks about Biedermeier furniture and painting only. If you think Biedermeier is an important term in the history of architecture, I don't mind inluding it under one of the headings. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • chateauesque I would call French Neo-renaissance (i.e. based loosely on the French Neo-Renaissance chateaux of the Loire; but I see Ghirla disagrees and thinks it is Gothic - I suppose its's a bit of both really
    I don't know, really. I took my cue from the article, which says that the model were the chateaus from the 1400s, not from the 1500s. Besides, Second Empire has its own claim for the title of French Neo-renaissance. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose it matters a great deal what they are, each individual building probably varies. Waddesdon Manor for instance proudly boasts it is copied from parts of various Neo-Renaissance chateaux - I expect others are real Gothic Dracula's - so leave as Gothic, I'm not fussed. Giano | talk 12:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Let me commend everyone on the collaboration that has led to this template which I think is particularly illuminating in its presention of the relationships of the various families of revivals styles. I do have one question about the Moorish Revival style's inclusion under the Gothic Revival. It is my understanding that the Ottomans' principal influence was Hagia Sophia which of course is Byzantine or Romanesque. Considering the examples shown, all with rounded rather than pointed arches, I would suggest that Moorish Revival be moved under Romanesque and Byzantine categories.
  • Also, regarding Jeffersonian Colonial, it is considered part of the Neo-Classical movement as it owes its porportions to Palladio. Could it be included in the table under Neo-Classicism? Thanks, --Vaquero100 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input, at the moment. Regarding Jeffersonian Colonial that could be interesting, (I don't really know it) if it is according to the strict mathematical proportions of Palladio, one could argue that is Palladian not Neo-classical. I'll have a look in a minute. I think we should aim to sort out and cataloge each of the many 19th century revival styles; and then begin the rather more mounmental (no pun intended) task of catalogueing each building. Anyhow, welcome to the debate. Giano | talk 09:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say Jeffersonian architecture having seen it, that was straighforward Palladian copied from the European style of the same name which Neo-classicism replaced. While it may have been built in the 19th century, its style (a revival in itself) was 18th century. Only my opinion. Giano | talk 09:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New to the Conversation

Thanks,Giano for inviting me to this discussion. If I had known about it, I would have conferred here before taking the actions I have today. First, let me say I am not an expert or afficiando--more of archie-buff, especially American 19th and early 20th Cen. domestic. So you all may know much more than I on the specific styles and their relations to one another.
Today I added a few categories. My philosophy is to work backwards from the most general categories. For the categories to work properly as indexes, which I assume is their purpose, they should function hierarchically. I think that should is the key term here in that people will always come along create links to places higher in the hierachy than necessay. I suspect that is why the top section of a category is other categories. Anyway, I created three categories to help organize some of the linking in this area today: They are Cat:American architectural styles (for styles originating in the US), Cat: Revival architectural styles and Cat: Victorian architectural styles. I have cross referenced each of these to Cat:House styles and Cat:architecture. I hope these intermediary categories help to organize and associate styles for readers.
As I understand it not all Revival styles are Victorian and not all Victorian styles are specifically revival. The Revivals table indicates otherwise, but some of those seem a bit forced to me (but I am not an acadamician in this area). In the outline posted earlier by Carptrash I am having some difficulty seeing how some of the Queen Ann or Picturesque styles are really revivals--revivals of what? Does everything 19th have to be squeezed into a revival category? Also, it seems to me that truly Victorian styles originate in Europe. So, just for clarification sake, I would not put Egyptian or Moorish Revival styles under the heading of Victorian. So if this is to all fit under one category, shouldn't it be 19th Century? Perhaps I am a bit too late in coming to this conversation, but as I continue to sort WP categories this is my thinking.
I would be curious to hear reactions. Thanks, --Vaquero100 21:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly I think we have to forget "Victorian" and think "19th century", while there were amazing advances in building technique the 19th century saw little advance in stylistic design, almost everything except possible "arts and crafts" referred to an earlier age. You are quite right Picturesque was not a revival, that's why it's not on the template, along with the Arts and Crafts movement. Queen Anne is a thorn in my side, that no-one else seems to feel. I think it's something worthy of an FA if anyone can definitively describe amd understand it - it looses me completely. Perhaps we need a list to start us off, of 19th century styles that were not revivals. Giano | talk 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Giano, actually I can feel your pain. It seems that 18th-century and 19th-century "Queen Anne" styles have little in common other than the name. Although the 19th-century style is retrospective and deserves a place in the template, Richard Norman Shaw drew his inspiration from a much broader range of influences than the seven years between 1707 and 1714 that gave this mode its rather confusing name. According to 2004 Britannica, he "demonstrated the virtues of the simple astylar (columnless) classical tradition of English 17th- and 18th-century architecture... Shaw's elegant town houses rely primarily on his very individual adaptation of 18th-century styles that he called "Queen Anne". His picturesque country houses derive from a study of regional developments in the English manorial style of the 16th century and are carried out with a marked respect for the differing nature of local building materials". --Ghirla -трёп- 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I cannot refrain from another Britannica quote: "Though also known as Queen Anne, the red brick architectural style of the 1870s in Great Britain and the United States had no real connection with the original Queen Anne period." --Ghirla -трёп- 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Categorising each 19th century building on Wikipedia!

Now that we have some semblance of order and clarity with the styles of 19th century architecture, largely thanks to Ghirla's template, perhaps it is now time to think about categorising the 19th century buildings. I suggest we have a category for each form e.g "Category: Italianate", Jacobethan, with each category being part of a parent Category e.g. "Category: Renaissance Revival" with the Grandparent "Category: 19th century architecture" That way the relationship between building can be discerned. I know how to create a category, I'm less sure how one does sub cats etc. Anyone have a view of comment? Giano | talk 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I shall start Neo-Renaissance categories later today. I have a question though - should grandparent category be Category:19th-century architecture (which we do not have) or Category:Revival architectural styles (which we do have)? I believe the latter is preferrable, because it would embrace Category:Neoclassical architecture, which includes a number of 18th-century structures too, as well as 20th-century revivals firmly entrenched in the Victorian tastes (e.g., Wrenaissance structures of the 1900s). --Ghirla -трёп- 07:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Giano. It sounds like you answered your question yourself. Category:Revival architectural styles seems to be a winner in this case. Thanks for the work you are doing. Then get on that cataloguing project for every edifice on the planet!! Cowboy. --Vaquero100 08:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Right all is now in order. Category:Italianate architecture is the child of Catagory: Renaissance revivlal which is the child of Category:Revival architectural styles. I shall now create Category: Jacobethan architecture as brother to Category:Italianate architecture - does that sound simple? Giano | talk 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/a/User_talk%7EGiano_19th_century_architecture_3ed9.html"