Gothic Architecture DB

I wanted to expand a bit on Elizabeth's argument by drawing from Emily's post and some of the points she makes.

While I agree that by using Nature as defined by "the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind" (as Emily noted) we can see the reasoning for using Gothic architecture in the North and not at a place like UT in the South, I think a stronger argument could be developed by including the second definition of nature that Emily mentions: "the particular combination of qualities belonging to a...thing."  With this definition I want to make the argument that Gothic architecture as a collegiate style is incompatible with UT not only in a physical sense, but in a more psychological sense, as well.

This psychological sense deals more with the "feel" or "genius loci" of a place like we talked about in the previous DB; almost a specific attitude of the builders as expressed by the building.  As Ruskin describes it, I will be dealing with the "internal elements" of Gothic architecture that describe the "mental tendencies of the builders" rather than the actual buildings themselves (538).

The first of the internal elements that so conflicts with the characteristics of the UT campus is savageness. As a city, Austin is well-known to be exceedingly liberal, and our campus tends to follow suit. It does not seem to follow logically that an architectural style whose people are characterized by “sternness and rudeness” (540) should exist in profusion here. Just as our weather is more closely related with that of the Southeastern European countries described by Ruskin, so are our attitudes more akin to the laid-back and languid attitudes of those same countries; it has simply not been bred into us.

The second internal element I find disconcerting is Rigidity. The “rigid lines, vigorous and various masses, and daringly projecting and independent structure of the Northern Gothic ornament” (554) are all manifestations of a resolute, almost harsh, nature (composition, not physical environment). I feel this when I look at Gothic structures…almost a bristling arrogance that awes, but does not really welcome me. This “independence of character” and “resoluteness of purpose” Ruskin describes are not bad qualities to have, however at a university it seems to me like architecture that represents a more open and malleable character would make more sense – after all, we must learn and fine tune our own thoughts before we can hammer them into a unified core.

Lastly, I disagree with the “accumulation of ornament” described by Ruskin as “redundance” (555) as fitting for the UT campus. In a university where we are so concerned with quality of the actual education, it seems foolish to spend such a profuse amount of time and energy into complexities of ornamentation for the buildings. I enjoy the designs of the buildings as much as any other person, however the extreme degree of ornamentation that describes traditional Gothic architecture is unnecessary in a college sphere.

For these reasons I believe that the “nature” (as in, constitution or attitude) reflected in Gothic architecture in the traditional sense diverges exceedingly from the “nature” of the UT campus. Although some remnants of the Gothic style remain on campus and contribute to its overall beauty, I am exceedingly glad that the master plan focused on the Spanish/Mediterranean style instead.