Case Study of the Mannerist Modern Movement

Palazzo Del Te

The Palazzo Del Te, consists of four long, low wings organizing a square tribunal. The earthbound quality of the house is emphasised by the usage of surprisingly big inside informations, such as tremendously weighty anchors that come into struggle with pediments and other next points, and outsize hearth. Rustication is used in about everyplace with wild illogicalness, so that a surface intervention conceived to propose strength comes to propose decay and unreliability.there different sized columns of the same order placed side by side, groundless pediments and many other similar violations of classical canons.the elegant garden side demonstrates a more sophisticated is based on the insistent design motive found throughout the history of adult male, but peculiarly favoured by the Renaissance.the three-part unit consisting of a little, a big and a little component, frequently called ‘a B a’ motive, or, more obscurely, the ‘rhythmic travee’ . The three Centre bays of the frontage seem to project far in forepart of the side-bays because of the usage of much larger motives ; it is more or less on the same plane. The beginning of this information

Andrea Palladio

The most of import designer of the Northern Italy in the 16th century, is Andrea Palladio, non merely for the quality of his work but besides for the influence which his edifices, his treatise and his drawings had on other states and other centuries. Palladio ( 1508-80 ) , is in many respects Alberti’s replacement, he excessively was a serious pupil of classical acquisitions and of Vitruvius and of Roman architecture in peculiar, he excessively leavened his antiquarian cognition with practical intelligence and esthesia. His work includes all sorts of buildings- civic- he remodelled the basilica in Vincenza in 1545, dressing the mediaeval town hall with a two-storey frill of ‘a B a’ arcading ; this motive is sometimes known as the ‘Palladian Motif’ as a consequence of his frequent usage of it ; domestic, both as castles and Villas ; and ecclesiastical. His larger churches, St. Giorgio Maggiore and Il Redentore, are in Venice ; his domestic architecture is in and around Vicenza. The celebrity of his town and state houses is such that it has tended to dominate that of his churches, but these were so extremely regarded by ulterior coevalss of Venetian designers as to suppress the spread of Baroque expressionism at that place, and they greatly impressed the Neo-classicist of the 18th century. In this manner continued the researches of Alberti, and if there is something Mannerist about the really imperturbability of his designs, Palladio like Michelangelo and unlike many other designers of the center of the 16th century, stands every bit much outside his clip as in it, making back to Alberti and to antiquity, and frontward to the hosts of designers, who were to be guided by him in the hereafter.


Idiosyncrasy can be sober or playful, obvious or latent ; it tends ever to be perturbing. It is better to believe about it as an attitude, instead than a manner, and of its changing productions as the creative activities of differing personalities working in a period of fall ining conventions.

Other outstanding Mannerist edifices are Vasari’s Uffizi of Florence ( 1550-74 ) , organizing three sides of a street-like tribunal and utilizing simplified classical elements in shadow. Ammanati’s courtyard of the Palazzo Pitti, Florence, ( 1558-70 ) , where rustication, altering from floor to storey, impartially covers walls and columns.

Vasari’s Uffizi, Florence

Ammanati’scourtyard of thePalazzo Pitti, Florence, ( 1558-70 ) , where rustication, altering from floor to storey, impartially covers walls and columns.

Palazzo Pitti, Florence

Vignola’s Villa Farnese at Caprarola( 1547-59 ) , a pentangular palace around a round tribunal approached by luxuriant stairss and inclines and decorative.



Vincenzo Scamozzi( 1552-1616 ) , Palladio’s student, carried his master’s classicizing manner into the seventeenth-century. His book Idea del“ Architettura Universale”( 1615 ) , together with Palladio’s Quattro Libri di Architectura ( 1570 ) , brought their designs to the drawing tabular arraies and libraries of designers and frequenters all over Europe and in the New World.


Geneo and Milan flourished architecturally in the 16th century, peculiarly at the custodies ofGalaezzo Alessi( 1512-72 ) , who knew Roman 16th century architecture at first manus and construct some all right castles in both metropoliss. He besides designed the centrally planned church of Sta Maria di Carignano, Genoa, establishing himself on Bramante’s program for St. Peter’s. Pelegrino Tibaldi’s frontage of San Fedele in Milan is a good illustration of Northern Italian late Mannerism ; a small disquieting, a small drilling, with a waterlessness that tended to impact

Mannerism everyplace before the rush of Baroque verve swept it aside.


Piazza San Fedele

Mannerist Modern Movement

Mannerist architecture remained conspicuously present in the immediate post-war

publications of the major architectural historiographers: Pevsner’s article ‘The Architecture of

Mannerism’ was published in 1946 and Blunt’s ‘Mannerism in Architecture’ followed

three old ages subsequently. But it was peculiarly the modernist matrix of Wittkower’s reading

of sixteenth-century architecture that was thirstily picked up by a coevals of

designers, who started utilizingArchitectural Principlesalongside theModulor— as did the

Smithsons. Among them, Colin Rowe, an designer and student of Wittkower’s at the

Warburg Institute, most clearly saw the deductions of the book for the reading

and further development of modern architecture. In March 1947, shortly following his

teacher’s ‘Principles of Palladio’s Architecture’ ( published in two parts in 1944 and

1945 ) ,55 but two old ages beforeArchitectural Principles, Rowe published ‘The Mathematicss

of the Ideal Villa’ in theArchitectural Review. Pairing the syntactical devices in the work

of ( Wittkower’s ) Palladio to those of Le Corbusier by facing the Villa Malcontenta

with the Villa Stein, he discovered similar compositional schemes. As Alina Payne has

argued, “this concentration on sentence structure allow ( ed ) him non merely to convey Palladio within the

orbit of modern unfavorable judgment, but, more by and large, to offer implicitly a scheme for

allowing historical illustrations into modernist design without openly oppugning its programmatic rejection of such borrowing.”

Rowe’s article was followed by another, published three old ages subsequently, once more in the

Architectural Review: ‘Mannerism and Modern Architecture’ Rowe cited both Pevsn and Blunt, apparently as his lone beginnings on Mannerism, while he oddly omitted any

mention to his instructor.

‘Mannerism and Modern Architecture’ starts with an ‘outing’ :

Rowe shows Le Corbusier’s foremost considerable undertaking, which the maestro himself had

censured out of hisOEuvre complete: the Villa Schwob at La Chaux-de-Fonds of 1916. He

points to the clean cardinal surface, for which he can non happen any functional ground and of

which he presumes it was “intended to shock”.Following this, Rowe comments that this

characteristic is non uncommon among sixteenth-century facades, and he mentions the

“characteristic late Mannerist schemes” of the alleged Casa di Palladio in Vicenza and

Federico Zuccheri’s casino in Florence. However, Rowe avoids direct associations, utilizing

Wolfflinian apposition instead than derivation, and concludes that “such a

correspondence may be strictly causeless or it may be of deeper significance.” Angstrom

twosome of pages further on, Rowe intimations at what that deeper significance might dwell of:

“If in the 16th century Mannerism was the ocular index of an acute spiritual and

political crisis, the return of similar leanings at the present twenty-four hours should non be

unexpected nor should match struggles require indication.”

From the Gallic hero of the Modern Movement, Rowe moves to the Viennese

polemist Adolf Loos. Hesitating before Loos’s most extremist facade, the garden side of

Haus Steiner, the historian maliciously comments that “Loos, with his overzealous onslaughts

upon decoration, might perchance, from one point of position, be considered as already

demoing Mannerist inclinations …” , His vivisection later turns, non to an

unauthorised vernal work, as was the instance with Le Corbusier’s early Villa, but to two,

if non canonical in any instance mostly mediatized illustrations of daring modernism.

Sing Walter Gropius’s Bauhaus edifice, Rowe observes that the logicer and

construction of the edifice is non instantly recognizable, as modernist regulation would

require, but becomes apprehensible to the oculus merely in the ‘abstract’ position from the air. “In

this thought of upseting, instead than supplying immediate pleasance for the eye” Rowe sees

connexions with Idiosyncrasy:

Sixteenth century Mannerism is characterized by similar ambiguities ; [ … ] a

deliberate and indissoluble complexness might be thought to be offered every bit by

Michelangelo’s Cappella Sforza and Mies van der Rohe’s undertaking of 1923 for the

Brick Country House. In the Capella Sforza, Michelangelo, working in the tradition

of the centralised edifice, establishes an seemingly centralised infinite ; but, within

its bounds, every attempt is made to destruct that focal point which such a infinite demands.65

The Cappella Sforza “ensues non so much ideal harmoniousness as planned distraction” , while

the Brick House “is without either decision or focus” . In its program “the decomposition of

the paradigm is every bit complete as with Michelangelo” .

Mannerist administrations in program link, for Rowe, Mies’s Hubbe House of 1935 and Vignola

and Ammanati’s Villa Giulia, while another Mannerist device, the strife between

elements of different graduated table placed in immediate apposition “is employed, likewise, by

Michelangelo in the apsiss of St. Peter’s and, with different elements, by Le Corbusier in

the Cite de Refuge.” And Rowe makes, evidently, mention to Le Corbusier’s “eloge

( Rowe’s word ) of St. Peter’s inVers une architecture. Harmonizing to Rowe, “it is

peculiarly the infinite agreements of the present twenty-four hours which will bear comparing with

those of the 16th century [ … ] ” , while “in the perpendicular surfaces of modern-day

architecture, comparing [ … ] is possibly of a more superficial than clearly incontrovertible

order.” Nevertheless, in a numerously held talk of unknown but somewhat subsequently day of the month,

‘The Provocative Facade: Frontality and Contrapposto’ , Rowe uses the same facade

comparings — and adds one: he cuts out the cardinal of the facade of Le

Corbusier’s Villa Stein at Garches, and topographic points it following to Ligorio’s casino of Pius IV ( or

Villa Pia, as he calls it ) — the topic, one should remember, of that earliest of articles on

Mannerist architecture, Friedlander’s of 1915. Rowe: “Shave Villa Pia, harvest Garches, and

there is stylistic convergence? There surely is.”

Furthermore, in the same text Rowe quotes Le Corbusier to demo the extent to which the

modern maestro has an finely Mannerist attitude towards the humanistic disciplines: “…there is a

citation of himself [ Le Corbusier ] which might assist to rectify accusals of

pedantry: ‘In a complete and successful work of art there is a wealth of intending merely

accessible to those who have the ability to see it, in other words to those who deserve

it.’” This elitist attitude is precisely what distinguishes the Mannerist creative person from his

Renaissance and Baroque co-workers. Yet, allow us turn back to the edifices themselves.

Not merely an elitist attitude, non merely program and facade composings link the Masterss of

the sixteenth and the 20th centuries: towards the terminal of “Mannerism and Modern

Architecture” Rowe addresses the brutalist’s pick of stuffs and modernist

particularization: “However, in the contemporary pick of texture, surface and item, purposes

general to Mannerism might perchance be detected. The surface of the Mannerist wall is

either crude or overrefined ; and aviciously direct rusticationoften occurs in

combination with an surplus of attenuated delicacy.” This originative tenseness between

brutalism ( akabugnato) and edification is, as we have seen, precisely the nucleus of

Gombrich’s statement in his seminal survey on Palazzo del Te . Rowe continues:

In this context, it is frivolous to compare the preciousness of Serlio’s restlessly

modelled, quoined designs with our ain random debris ; but the frigid

architecture which appears as the background to many of Bronzino’s portrayals is

certainly balanced by the iciness of many insides of our ain twenty-four hours. And the additive

daintiness of much modern-day item surely finds a sixteenth-century


In this citation Rowe allows us to understand his docket. In ‘Mannerism and Modern

Architecture’ and in the ‘The Provocative Facade’ that docket is non merely — as was the

instance in his “Mathematics of the Ideal Villa” — about countering “the avantgarde aura of

Le Corbusier’s architecture by demoing how ingeniously and eclectically one of the most

polemical modernists had appropriated and recontextualized the Classical tradition” and

about underselling “modernism’s claims to being a schismatic interruption with the past” .

What so, is Rowe’s docket? Surely, it doesnonconcern the resistance of the inventiveness

and daintiness ofcinquecentoarchitecture to a presumed deficiency of both in the edifices of

the modern Masterss, as Leon Satkowski seems to propose in the debut of the

book he wrote with the ( so tardily ) Rowe. Rather, Rowe is supporting modernism, as he

makes unmistakably clear towards the terminal of ‘The Provocative Facade’ : “… if presents

Le Corbusier is going clearlycharacter non grata, to neglect to register his accomplishment

is rather as wholly stupid as was the eighteenth-century failure to ‘see’ either

Michelangelo or Borromini — within which sequence ( … ) Le Corbusier assuredly


In ‘Mannerism and Modern Architecture’ , Mannerist qualities — the “delicacy of detail” ,

etc. — are brought to the deliverance of modernist, daring architecture. This can be

better understood if one takes into consideration a 1951 article by a immature Polish

emigre designer in the United States, Matthew Nowicki, which Rowe would

later recognition. In ‘Origins and Tendencies in Modern Architecture

At the really minute when modernism is merchandising its radical, heretic position for

mainstream pattern, in those early old ages of the 1950s when the failures of the Modern

Motion are about to be widely discussed, it is, once more, Mannerism that is brought into

place. That is: at the really minute that modernism’s “delicacy of detail” , its formal

complexnesss andcontrapposti, all so well-appreciated by Rowe, are watered down into

the “rubble” of post-war mass edifice production.After Mannerism had been a

mention point for the early grasp of Expressionist art by Dvorak and

Friedlander ; after Burckhardt ( with opposite purposes ) had recognised — and feared

— in Michelangelo the archetypal modern creative person ; shortly after the complex attitudes of

cinquecentodesigners had been explored with a positive prejudice arising in

depth psychology ; and following the Modern Movement architect’s modeling after its

Mannerist ascendant, Rowe, at last, is maneuvering that same Mannerism to the deliverance of