The Architecture of Humanism offers a brilliant analysis of the theories and ideas behind much of nineteenth- and twentieth-century architecture. It discusses the classical tradition as reflected in the architecture of Renaissance and Baroque Italy and the role given the human body in that tradition. It is recommended reading for all architecture students, and essential for those interested in the revival of classical architecture.
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.
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.