Three-dimensional building
Sir: Few could disagree with Gavin Stamp's appreciation of the plastic qual- ities of the architecture of Hawksmoor, Soane and Lutyens (8 September); an architecture 'not rigid but capable of de- velopment, allowing the abstraction or elimination of details and adaptation to new types of building'. Could he explain, however, why this argues for the con- tinuing vitality of classicism, and yet not at all for the kind of modern architecture emerging from Cambridge?
I would guess that he would point to the difference as lying in the latter's lack of a 'coherent visual discipline' (exemplified for him by its disdain for the conventional perspective rendering). The classical draw- ings at the Building Centre did testify to an impressive discipline, but it was the disci- pline of the studio. I have yet to be convinced that contemporary classicists have developed a visual discipline which operates (as Soane's and Lutyens's obviously did) at the level at which build- ings are experienced, that is, in three dimensions. In this respect perhaps it is Cambridge that can more fairly be said to represent the legacy of the great English classicists.
Brian Hanson
62 Clapham Common Westside, London SW4
Previous page
