Ruskin and Viollet le Duc

Two people so similar, yet so very very different.

                Eugene Viollet le Duc and John Ruskin were two theorists of the Gothic Revival.   While they stood behind two very different podiums, their voices were occasionaly found to be harmonious. 

                Ruskin was very much right brained and driven by his religious beliefs.  He was well known for his speeches and for his writings, many of which spoke highly of Viollet le Duc.  In Viollet le Duc’s writing, Ruskin is never mentioned by him personally.  When Pevsner compares the writing of the two of them, he definitely puts Viollet le Duc on a higher pedestal.  I find it interesting though that while Viollet le Duc himself does not mention Ruskin, his superiors do.  These superiors go out of their way to talk about Ruskin who is not directly involved.  I think that this speaks to Ruskin’s works and ideas despite Pevsner’s unnecessary animosity. 

                In the Seven Lamps of Architecture, the personalities and beliefs of these two men become more evident.  Overall, Ruskin speaks of these things in a less direct manner.  He leaves his views open for interpretation.  Viollet le Duc is very straightforward.  It is a clear checklist of what is black and what is white.  He saw gothic architecture as reason and science.  Ruskin looks past that and moves to the essence of man in respect to his architecture.  “A foolish person builds foolishly, and a wise one, sensibly.”  Rather straightforward, but the writing clearly tries to pick at the core of these people and their motives.  He believed that you could look at these buildings and figure out more about these people, and put a high value on the artist who ornamented the building.

                The artist was important to Ruskin.  The details of their work in addition to the actual building were also considered architecture.  However, the only way this ornamentation was considered to be high art was if it was a painting or carving of natural objects.  Viollet le Duc put a high price on the designer.  Their ability to think logically and create a cohesive plan put them above the rest in his eyes. The words of these two men frequently preceded them, but they were not completely full of opinions, both men were hands on and also had their opinions about restoration.

                Ruskin saw beauty in the imperfections of buildings.  “Imperfections is in some sort essential to all that we know of life.  It is the sight of a state of progress and change.” He also believed that if you, “remove the surface, you have killed the building.”  It was his priority to restore things to their original glory. Viollet le Duc however, respected the ideas of the past, but looked for ways to make them more innovative.  Viollet le Duc had a strong understanding of what once was, but looked to make his own rendition of them.

                While both of these men clearly had their differences, the one thing they could agree on was the fact that these gothic buildings were a reflection of all of the working classes combined.  It required the work of many to produce the final product.  While Ruskin admired all of the fine details done by individual craftsman, Viollet le Duc admired the designer for their overall composition and sense of place.  

Sketch done by Ruskin with serious attention to the details of the walls.

 

Composition by Viollet le Duc giving more of a general sense of the place. The details are more washed out.