Abstract/Details

Architecture, labor and the human body: Fergusson, Cockerell and Ruskin


1993 1993

Other formats: Order a copy

Abstract (summary)

While historians of nineteenth-century architecture have devoted attention to prevailing styles and their social meanings, no study has considered architectural design and production in terms of differing definitions of the body and of labor. This dissertation suggests that the formal qualities of nineteenth-century buildings cannot be divorced from contemporary insights into the nature of the human body, its form or capacities. The thesis focuses upon the contrasting positions outlined during the 1840s and 50s in Britain by James Fergusson, C. R. Cockerell and John Ruskin, and briefly investigates the contributions of Edward Lacy Garbett and William Whewell. Cockerell invoked the authority of Vitruvius to argue that architectural design involved the representation of the body, defined as an ideal type of beauty. This theory was irrelevant to Fergusson and Ruskin, who both focused on the body as a living being, capable of performing labors that were expressed in architecture. For Fergusson,the body comprised distinct faculties to be isolated from one another and engaged in the performance of divided labors. Ruskin vehemently disagreed, arguing that all faculties must be interrelated in creative work.

Through an analysis of Fergusson's ideas, the thesis traces the impact of nineteenth-century notions of social productivity and progress on architectural theory. Fergusson hailed the division of labor as an indication of progress, and sought to apply this understanding to architecture, by conceiving of a building as the product of three distinct types of work--muscular, aesthetic and intellectual--performed by three separate classes of workers. Both Cockerell and Ruskin criticized this position. Architectural form, for Cockerell, could not be divided to express different labor skills, as it must exhibit the proportions and sensuous qualities of the ideal human body. Ruskin attacked Fergusson's theory for promoting degraded work: the result would be the impoverishment of architecture and, ultimately, social disintegration. Despite their differences, Cockerell and Ruskin both sought to impress an ideal of bodily well-being upon architectural form. Their significance to us lies in the opposition to the productivist notion, clearly stated by Fergusson, that only a divided body can be expressed in architecture.

Indexing (details)


Subject
Architecture;
European history
Classification
0729: Architecture
0335: European history
Identifier / keyword
Communication and the arts; Social sciences; Cockerell, C. R.@; Fergusson, James; Ruskin, John
Title
Architecture, labor and the human body: Fergusson, Cockerell and Ruskin
Author
Kohane, Peter Maxwell
Number of pages
555
Publication year
1993
Degree date
1993
School code
0175
Source
DAI-A 54/06, Dissertation Abstracts International
Place of publication
Ann Arbor
Country of publication
United States
Advisor
Brownlee, David
University/institution
University of Pennsylvania
University location
United States -- Pennsylvania
Degree
Ph.D.
Source type
Dissertations & Theses
Language
English
Document type
Dissertation/Thesis
Dissertation/thesis number
9331805
ProQuest document ID
304074847
Copyright
Database copyright ProQuest LLC; ProQuest does not claim copyright in the individual underlying works.
Document URL
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304074847
Access the complete full text

You can get the full text of this document if it is part of your institution's ProQuest subscription.

Try one of the following:

  • Connect to ProQuest through your library network and search for the document from there.
  • Request the document from your library.
  • Go to the ProQuest login page and enter a ProQuest or My Research username / password.