From Taeho Paik,
August 28, 2001
Dear Poliphilo,
I refer to the letter
(Tendencies Among Classical...) to you by my friend and colleague, David Mayernik, of August 2000.
In this letter, he suggests a certain lack of appreciation, amongst current practitioners of classical architecture, for the historical
lineage (bloodline) of Classical Architecture. He suggests that there is instead a tendency to 'reinvent the wheel' as it were, each time.
He asserts that in seeking to always return to the beginnings, 'first principles', modern classicists are ignoring the 'dynamic' elements of
the art of making classical architecture, choosing instead to learn only from the 'static' elements of derived styles and formal rules.
Poliphilo, I believe that David has pin-pointed the essential difference in definitions between 'humanism' and 'classicism'.
If I understand it correctly, this humanism, "man is the measure of all things", was the motivating impulse that distinguished the
Renaissance as a revolutionary 'reawakening' of the human spirit. In as much as we remember the Renaissance less as a social phenomenon
but more as a flowering of the arts, it augers well as David suggests to examine with greater interest,
the artistic life histories and the pedigree of the characters who personify the achievements of the period.
My interpretation of the situation is this: Humanism was the impulse that had scholars and artists reaching into the antique past
to find the language and forms adequate to express the potency of the enlightened mind. Artistic traditions then developed which treated
the mastery of these forms as one requiring great learning and personal development.
In modern society, the idea of apprenticeship applies more to vocational training and in the
arts it has been devalued to mere 'assisting', hoping that somehow the master's glory will rub off.
David suggests that the objective of the Renaissance master and pupil system was to 'strive to exceed the accomplishment of the teacher'.
One imagines that this process of learning not only required the 'temporary surrender of ego' but also a surrender to the process of
personal maturing in order that one may reawaken one's own spirit. In looking at Renaissance art,
I detect a deep sensibility towards depicting human character, thus a path towards becoming a Renaissance artist
would have involved a concerted study of humanity as a subject fit for art.
As the days pass, I am becoming evermore aware of the deficiencies of my own (modernist)
architectural training that effectively led me away from any possibility of artistic enlightenment. The craft of building,
sculpting and painting are laborious means to specific productive ends. A sane person would not submit himself to the painful process
of mastering them unless the results served a tangible, inspired purpose. I was never an apprentice to anyone and now at 44,
I can only imagine who my mentor could have been. This realisation has naturally been humbling. Is there a do-it-yourself manual for
humanist architecture? Do I really want to read an abridged bible? If I represent a generation of beings only now emerging from modernity's
darkest hour, I can only show the young ones coming after me the pitfalls that I have found along the way.
If worldly living has been my best teacher, it has done well to guide me to a place where there is a clearer view,
especially of the things that I would like to learn anew how to revere.
Back to Letters Index