The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste

by Geoffrey Scott

Reissued in a new format, with a new introductory essay by Paul Barolsky (University of Virginia) and an expanded portfolio of illustrations compiled by Henry Hope Reed, who wrote the foreword to the book when it was reprinted more than a quarter-century ago, The Architecture of Humanism remains, as Barolsky writes, "one of the classics in the modern literature on architecture." It is recommended reading for all students of architecture and art history, and essential for everyone interested in the revival of classical architecture.

Genres: Architecture, History, Art, Nonfiction

266 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1914

About the author

There is more than one author with this name.

Geoffrey^Scott

Reviews

[Simone · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just didn’t do it for me. Undeniably a flawlessly argued position, and I totally buy his argument, like totally. I also think the fallacies he outlines are a great way to assess criticism and evaluation of all arts. But winding up in a place of effect/affect doesn’t do it for me. The book just couldn’t get me where i wanted to go, but i don’t regret reading it of course. The biological fallacy is a brilliant way to understand what went wrong with art history, that’s the best part.

[Hana :) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting points, but mostly a bore with quite the hubristic tone. Really had to chore through this one...

[Alexander Craghead]

This book disappoints me a bit, but in other ways is useful. It seems more a polemic work of advocacy, a kind of argument for why a specific type of architecture is morally better than another, rather than an introspective analysis of a period of architecture. This bothers me as a work of scholarship, but turning it on the head, it makes the work an interesting window into contemporary thought. It would be good to know how influential the author was on thinking about buildings and space in his time.

[Freddy]

good book but hard to understand, i have read it twice but still there are some unclear parts!