Viollet-le-Duc, who lived from 1814 to 1879, developed an approach to architecture in response to his love and study of Gothic architecture. In it he saw a rationalism underlying every move and came to the conclusion that this rationalism must be evident for any quality work of architecture to exist. Pevsner indicates that le-Duc's emphasis on reasoning behind architecture was an extension of a line of thought in France stretching back to the sixteenth century. "[Philibert] Delorme, ... [François] Derand, ... [Jean-Louis de] Cordemoy and [Amédée-François] Frézier" (Pevsner, 1969, p. 30) were architects and engineers who valued sound engineering principles and clear expression of structure; Cordemoy in particular found this value demonstrated in Gothic architecture ("Cordemoy," 2006). With this background and intensive study, le-Duc developed a rational approach to architecture, publishing the Dictionnaire Raisonée de l'Architecture Française du XIe au XVIe Siècle ("A Reasoned Dictionary of French Architecture from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Century"), in which he demonstrates his approach in relation to Gothic architecture.
But Viollet-le-Duc was driven in this quest by more than intellectual curiosity or even a love for the Gothic--ultimately he saw a world in which no coherent approach to architecture existed, and he sought to bring a logic to it that would support the development of new architecture to the degree that the classical orders supported temple design. Subsequent to publishing his Dictionnaire, le-Duc published his Entretiens sur l'Architecture ("Conversations on Architecture"), analyzing the great architecture of the past and showing that each era derived its greatness from underlying rationality. Applying this understanding to the present age, le-Duc reasoned that only in operating in a rational mode could good architecture be produced going forward (Summerson, 1998, p. 150). Summerson quotes le-Duc as follows, showing his belief that reason and principle were preconditions for quality architecture:
"If we get into the habit of proceeding by the light of reason, if we erect a principle, the labour of composition is made possible, if not easy, for it follows an ordered, methodical march towards results which, if not masterpieces, are at least good respectable works--and capable of possessing style" (p. 156).But given those preconditions, le-Duc saw no reason that good architecture could not be produced, even if the methods and materials in use were changing. Indeed, he embraced the possibly, going as far as suggesting how the logic of the Gothic might incorporate iron as a building material. As long as the application was the result of rigorous inquiry and sound reasoning, it was valid.
John Ruskin's approach could scarcely be more different than that of Viollet-le-Duc, both in terms of analysis and of future development. Where for le-Duc the quality of architecture only made sense in terms of reason, for Ruskin quality was tied instead to the man behind the architecture, his disposition and his appreciation of the virtues that Ruskin saw as being the source of all good architecture (upon which he expounded in his work The Seven Lamps of Architecture). The logic of the structure had nothing to do with it; in fact, Ruskin seems only to have valued ornament as architecture. Anything less than that was simply a means to end, the most basic elements required for a building to exist (Pevsner, p. 22). He appreciated truth in materials as did le-Duc, but this in terms of the virtue of honesty, not in terms of reason (p. 16). His understanding of the Gothic is ascertained through impressions and interpretations that are far from precise (p 24, 26).
For Ruskin, the new developments of his time represented a decline, a drifting away from the virtues he saw exhibited so beautifully in the Gothic works he admired. Ruskin lived in the same age as le-Duc with the same forces at work in society and the arts, but while Viollet le-Duc saw opportunity for quality architecture to develop within the present context incorporating developments in method and material, Ruskin saw only the deterioration of virtues long embodied in the great architecture of the past. It is from this place that he proclaims "We want no new style of architecture... The forms of architecture already known are good enough for us, and far better than any of us" (p. 26-27). To Ruskin the idea that good architecture could be redefined is ludicrous; in his mind a style should simply be imposed; it is within such constraints that great architecture of the past flourished (p. 28). Not surprisingly, Ruskin became a passionate advocate of the preservation of historic buildings, whereas le-Duc set about restoring buildings and taking re-interpretive liberties in the process.
More in the vein of le-Duc, Gottfried Semper attempted to apply a scientific approach to architecture and formulate a theory of style that could be used to both explain and generate good architecture. Unlike le-Duc, however, Semper's thought developed out of more general philosophical streams of thought which he sought to apply generally to art as a whole. Looking at the history of various artworks, he sought to transcend the debates of the day by deducing fundamental principles of design (Eck 2006). Thus, where le-Duc was examining Gothic architecture for the reasoning behind specific choices, Semper was seeking the principles behind the reasoning--those which gave it purpose.
In the end he developed what he considered a mathematical formula for style, but as Eck observes, this formal approach "removed the artwork from the real world of purposes, functions, and uses." This made art works "autonomous microcosms obeying their own organic principles of figuration"--in other words, his method considered art and architecture in a vacuum, apart from "the social, political, and cultural conditions that surrounded their making." So while his theories developed out of a study of art throughout history, they divorced themselves from the wider context of history in the process. As a result, Semper failed to arrive at method that would really translate to a practical architecture for his age.
The methods chosen by each of these thinkers shed light on the reason Viollet-le-Duc's ideas took hold and are considered the beginning of modern architecture. Both Ruskin and Semper, while able to grasp the development and value of architecture through the ages with deep insight, were unable to leave the past behind in a way that was truly tractable for a society that was rapidly evolving. In contrast, Viollet-le-Duc proposed a practical means to incorporate new developments while still endowing the architecture with integrity. His bent was toward Gothic architecture, but he was able both to apply his approach to other architectural eras and to propose actual new designs based on his method. Viollet-le-Duc provided the beginnings of a way forward.
References
Cordemoy, Abbé Jean-Louis de. (2006). In J. S. Curl (Ed.), A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198606789.001.0001/acref-9780198606789-e-1170
Eck, C. v. (2006). Gottfried Semper and the problem of historicism [by] Mari Hvattum. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 65(1), 136-139.
Pevsner, N. (1969). Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the appreciation of Gothic architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
Summerson, J. (1998). Heavenly mansions and other essays on architecture. New York: Norton.
