On Rhetoric

Part 1

Peter Eisenman's somewhat recent essay There Are No Corners after Derrida (pdf) in Log 15(1) of last

winter encouraged a rethinking of representation in architecture which prioritizes "undecidable"

relationships and decouples the architectural object from the architectural sign. On this point I agree with

him entirely and the point seems important to reiterate in light of current trends toward iconicityand

hyperindexicality. However the actual engagement with Derrida in this essay is disappointingly unincisive

(he is neither quoted nor cited directly). One is left thinking Eisenman would have been better off

pursuing the triadic structure of Peirce's pure rhetoric (briefly mentioned) than assuming that "any

rhetoric can be said to have evolved out of this stable dyadic relationship [signifier-signified] and thus is

secondary to it."(1) Without this implicit need to overturn the illusion object-sign coexistence, Eisenman

might have avoided what seems to me the biggest weakness of the essay: the reliance on the corner as a

singular, even exceptional architectural "integer".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorpatt/4856656782/in/photostream/

Corner, Palazzo dei Conservatori. Trevor Patt.

Peirce insists on a triadic basis of all signification precisely in order to avoid the impression of a static

correspondence between signified and signifier.

The meaning of a representation can be nothing but a representation. In fact, it is nothing but the

representation itself conceived as stripped of irrelevant clothing. But this clothing never can be

completely stripped off; it is only changed for something more diaphanous. So there is an infinite

regression here. Finally, the interpretant is nothing but another representation to which the torch of

truth is handed along; and as representation, it has its interpretant again. Lo, another infinite

series. (2)

When one reconsiders each and every sign as a participation in a potentially infinite series of interpretant

signs, the supposedly stable relationship slips away (moreso when one considers that the path and depth

of the series of interpretants varies for Peirce with every observation) into diaphanous tissue. This is what

DeMan meant in writing of "only [then] would there be no need to distinguish between grammar and

rhetoric"(4). Within Peirce's pure rhetoric, nowhere not even in architecture do "object, sign, and

meaning converge"(1).

If all signification then participates in the rhetorical, what then can we make of the rest of Eisenman's

essay. We cannot simply say, "well, There Haven't Been Corners Since Peirce," nor is it enough to remove

the corner from its privileged position and consider our work finished. What is necessary is to put forward

models, whether integer or multiple, with more complexity than the corner can provide(4). Why, in fact

shouldn't walls be just capable of expressing undecidable signification?

Here Scott Cohen's analyses of the "contested symmetries" of Villa Gambano and Villa Tauro(5) would

serve well to illustrate the dense and overlapping relationships of inclusion, interference and

interdependence suggestive of the infinite representation engendered by representation. However, to hew

more closely to the examples offered in the essay (the position of triglyphs in Greek and Roman freizes,

and the reentrant corner of Bramante's courtyard at S. Maria della Pace) I'm going to offer examples of

my own.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorpatt/4856682300/

Resolution of the corner triglyph in Greek and Roman design.

source: Log 15(1) p114.

To quickly recap the question of the triglyphs: the Doric frieze as constructed in stone introduced a

disjunction between the position of the triglyphs, the width of the entablature, and the location of the

columns. The typical solutions in classical Greek architecture were either to widen the outboard triglyph

such that it matched the column dimension and the two appeared centered (3rd drawing above), or to

decrease outer column bays, moving the last column inward to line up with the outer edge of the triglyph

(4th drawing above). Roman architects, meanwhile maintained the column/triglyph position, accepting

the extension of the frieze beyond the outer triglyph. This reinforces the characterization of Greek and

Roman space as defined by, respectively, a diagonal approach which emphasizes the continuity of the

corner, and a frontal approach to a central entrance.

Eisenman, with most scholars, treats this as a definitive example of the problem of corner design. This is a

reasonable assessment, as the adjustments to the facade rarely extends beyond the last bay. A very close

analysis of Michelangelo's Palazzo dei Conservatori, however reveals the latent potential of this operation

to engage the grammar of the entire facade.

Elevation of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Trevor Patt.

Most discussion of the Piazza del Campidoglio focuses on the design of the plan (6) and the problem

posed to Michelangelo by the existing buildings and their historical significance, while the design of the

palazzi and their elevations are given less attention. However, within the framework established here,

these buildings become very interesting.

the Capitoline Hill. Trevor Patt.

The Piazza del Campidoglio, approached from the Piazza d'Aracoeli and the Cordonata presents the

Palazzo dei Conservatori first from the corner, an impact exaggerated by the trapezoidal plan of the

piazza. However as befitting a building of the palazzo typology, the Conservatori is primarily a frontal

building and addresses itself to the piazza a such. Moreover in it's urban habitat, the 'Roman' solution is

certainly expected and resonant with both its context and lineage. And yet, that oblique approach

precludes the possibility of the conventional Roman solution, as on the Palazzo Senatorio. Michelangelo's

solution is to maintain the even spacing of column bays (similar to examples 3 and 5 in the diagram

above, and unlike 4) as well as the constant dimension of the mutules (similar to 4 and 5, and unlike 3),

while preserving the corner position of the outboard mutule by subltly varying the spacing across the

entire facade.

As an aside: a quick glance at the facade of the Palazzo dei Conservatori reveals that the frieze is certainly

not a pure Doric frieze and lacks triglyphs altogether. For the purpose of this analysis I will be discussiong

the position of the mutules and the ornamental downspouts located on the geison which are paired with

them. The diminished visual importance of these elements should underscore the care with which

Michelangelo composed this facade.

Analysis of the elevation of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Trevor Patt.

Underlying drawing from Bruno Zevi and Paolo Portoghesi's Michelangiolo Architetto(7) p486-87.

At the center bay, we can see that the mutules are perfectly centered above the columns. Were this pattern

carried to the edges, the corner of the entablature would occur in the middle of the space between

mutules. Therefore at all of the columns to the right of the central bay we find them shifted slightly toward

the front of the piazza. One additional mutule is then added outboard of the the column and the

downspouts to make the corner. This is a departure, if minor, from the traditional solution(8). What

Michelangelo does on the left side is even more unusual. Rather than simply mirroring the right side

across, he makes every column/mutule arrangement unique; proceeding from the center, each

subsequent bay is shifted one step more than the previous. Thus the first column left of the central bay

sees it's attendant mutules moved to the left one third space, the next twice the shift, and at the final

column the mutules have moved an entire unit—unlike the right side nothing is added at the corner, the

drainspouts are, however, realigned one mutule to the right(9).

Analysis detail of left side. Trevor Patt.

Analysis of spatial compression in the elevation of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Trevor Patt.

Underlying photograph from Vincenzo Fasolo's

Michelagniolo Architettor Poeta(10) p27.

The elevation of the Conservatori, then, registers an index of spatial compression in the piazza, expanding

out over Rome on one side and gathering close against the Senatorio on the other. Significantly the

composition cannot be isolated in a single moment but produces a network of relatinships entangled in a

nonhierarchical series of competing and often contradictory representations(11).

Analysis of spatial compression in the elevation of the

Palazzo dei Conservatori. Trevor Patt.

Underlying drawing from James Ackerman's

L'Architecture de Michel-Ange(12) p130-31.

The effect is quite subtle and I have yet to find an elevation drawing which reproduces the condition

accurately(9). To emphasize the specificity of measure and construction which was necessary, we can

observe the relative disorder and lack of cohesion on the Palazzo Nuovo, opposite, built from the same

drawings, but begun almost 40 years after Michelangelo's death(13) Here the columnns and mutules have

no distinct relationship, the downspouts themselves moving independent of the mutules at times.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorpatt/4857065738/

Palazzo Nuovo. Trevor Patt.

Part 2 will parallel Eisenman's treatment of Bramante's famous reentrant corner at S.Maria della Pace

and contrast it to Borromini's treatment of the same theme in the cloister of S. Carlo alle Quattro Fontane,

continuing the theme of expanding architectural rhetoric beyond the simple interaction of two elements,

easily isolated as a discrete sign, and unfolding the potential encompassing systems of rhetoric and

representation.

1. Peter Eisenman. There Are No Corners after Derrida. Log 15. p111, 113, 114

2. Charles Sanders Peirce. The Collected Papers Volume 1 §2.339

the quoted passage is preceded thusly, "A sign stands for something to the idea which it produces, or modifies. Or, it is a

vehicle conveying into the mind something from without. That for which it stands is called its object; that which it conveys,

its meaning; and the idea to which it gives rise, its interpretant. The object of representation can be nothing but a

representation of which the first representation is the interpretant. But an endless series of representations, each

representing the one behind it, may be conceived to have an absolute object at its limit."

3. Paul de Man "Semiology and Rhetoric" in Diacritics v3.n3 p29

quoted in Eisenman's essay, p112.

4. Like the b/p phoneme the corner is a bit too easy to reduce to a cute, reciprocally determined pair

5. Preston Scott Cohen. Contested Symmetries and Other Predicaments in Architecture. p16-36.

6. This investigation was originally inspired by comments made by T. Kelly Wilsonabout the position of the equestrian statue

of Marcus Aurelius relative to thecentering of the piazza.

7. Paolo Portoghesi and Bruno Zevi. Michelangiolo Architetto. p486-87.

8. It is possible that, in fact that the central bay is wider than the side bays and this solution is similar to the 4th example in

Eisenman's triglyph diagram. My analysis centers on alignment rather than measurement due to the obvious difficulty of

accurately measuring the roof line of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Regardless, this would remain a unique variation of the

'Parthenon' solution.

9. Portoghesi's drawings, though usually fabulously detailed, are inaccurate here. He depicts 8 mutules in the span between

every column, in reality each span contains 9 mutules except the left-most bay which contains 8 due to the shift explained

above.

10. Vicenzo Fasolo. Michelagniolo Archittetor Poeta. p27.

11. The continuity of the column line through the shifting entablature to the statuary above, for example.

12. James Ackerman. L'Architecture de Michel-Ange. p130-31.

13. Construction on the Palazzo Nuovo continued from 1603-1654, the Palazzo Conservatori was built between 1563-68, after

Michelangelo's death in 1564, it was overseen by Giacomo della Porta.

P O S T E D B Y T R E V O R P A T T A T 6 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 0 ► 2009 (10