Pugin_and_the_Revival_of_Gothic_Architecture

Option 2 Pugin and the Revival of Gothic Architecture Explore the themes of tradition and dissent in relation to the architecture and furnishings of the new Palace of Westminster. The fire on October 16th 1834 which almost destroyed the Palace of Westminster provided not only the opportunity to build a new improved palace, but also the opportunity to re-establish our National Identity through an iconic landmark building, although the building of the New Palace was not without controversy. A Royal committee was founded to commission the building of the New Palace. It was decided that an open competition would be run and architects were invited to submit their designs. The style of building was to be either ‘Elizabethan’ or ‘Gothic’. A heated debated followed over the proposed styles. The dominate style of architecture during this period, and the previous two centuries had been classical however such style now held negative connotations largely associated with ideals such as the French revolution. The palace had previously been remodelled prior to the fire of 1834. Sir John Soane had been responsible for remodelling the palace complex between 1824 and 1827. Soane’s alterations were also the subject of some controversy as they were ‘classical’ in architectural style and as such conflicted with the buildings original ‘Gothic’ style. Keen to distance themselves from negative imagery, the Royal committee chose ‘Elizabethan’ and ‘Gothic’ styles believing they were far safer options lending themselves to conservative values. In this respect we see ‘dissent’ (being the new ‘Gothic’ style) from an old ‘tradition’ (being the ‘classical’ style) moving forward and embracing an new era. Charles Barry with his ‘gothic’ design was announced winner of the competition, his designs alongside Pugin’s drawings and ‘Gothic revival’ reputation were a winning combination. Although Barry won the commission it is believed that he relied heavily on Pugin. Barry’s field of expertise lay predominately in ‘classical’ design and construction. The design was in essence ‘Classical’ this is apparent when looking at the floor plans and from the river front view of the building, the building is symmetrical, a telling feature of ‘classical’ buildings. Pugin however was not deceived he was more than aware, he describes Barry’s designs as “All Grecian, Sir : Tudor details on a classic body” (Ferrey, 1861 p248) Pugin viewed the choice of ‘Gothic’ as extremely significant, in fact Pugin felt so strongly about the ‘Gothic’ style he argued that “...[the surviving buildings] should not be disgraced by another of the half-English, half-Pagan [classical] erections ...”(Pugin, 1835, pp13-14) The design of the new palace was in fact a merge of both the ‘Elizabethan’ period and ‘Gothic’ style, and as such further illustrates the ‘dissent’ from ‘tradition’. The design that Barry had proposed for the building was “...Perpendicular Gothic from the Tudor period...distinguished by rich details ... fan vaulting and architectural, sculptural and painted decoration” The design is a careful balance between symmetry (the building from the riverside perspective[see figure 4.4 of the study material]) and asymmetry (the aerial perspective from Westminster Abbey see figure 4.5 of the study material). Barry’s New Palace design cleverly incorporated the surviving parts of the old palace with the new, “...the mix of old and new represents the continuity with the past on which government relies for its authority.” (Carol Richardson) Barry’s concept of “... the great square tower as a keep of the legislative ‘castle’ (echoing his selection of the portcullis as his identifying mark in the competition) ...” (Wikipedia) was almost certainly responsible for Barry winning the competition. Pugin furthered the design by adding in the Tudor rose alongside the portcullis, and used this design extensively throughout the Palace, the Portcullis and Tudor rose can be seen on wallpaper and wood carvings. Thus giving the Palace an original but uniform feel, uniting both Barry’s and Pugin’s designs and cementing the pairs collaboration, one could say it is almost a designer brand, again this could be termed ‘dissent’. Many of Pugin’s design realisations are intact and still grace the Chamber of Lords, these include octagonal tables, x-frame chairs and most splendid of all the ornate gold canopy and Throne. The Chamber is lavishly decorated, the benches in the chamber alongside the other furnishing are coloured red. In the upper part of the Chamber, there are stained glass windows and six allegorical frescoes which represent Religion, Chivalry and law. We also see the repeated use of ‘Gothic’ arches throughout the building, both inside and out. Every detail carefully designed and perfectly executed. It has been speculated that Pugin submitted around two thousand drawings to Barry detailing a variety of designs all of which were for the Palace of Westminster. The detail on the outside of the building is just as impressive, we see more of Pugin’s designs realised through stonemasons, a fine example takes the form of a lion and a unicorn outside the entrance to Saint Stephens. Saint Stephens tower and the residing bell ‘Big Ben’ are widely thought to be credited to Pugin. The architect and the guide, was Barry. He conceived the brilliant purposeful layout, which as we know is still functioning today, it sympathetically incorporates, and enhances the surviving medieval buildings which include Westminster Hall. Barry, who was clearly from a ‘classical’ background, could never have executed the planning and construction of a building so distinctive in the Gothic idiom without the expertise of Pugin and vice or versa. This is apparent when you consider that Pugin also acted as a draughtsman for James Gillespie Graham, whom also submitted an entry into the open competition. Pugin however did not make an entry of his own, we can only speculate as to why. The collaboration of Barry and Pugin resulted in what could arguably be called the greatest architectural commission of the 19th Century. It could also be argued that the Palace of Westminster re-build and design, was the catalyst which led to the ‘Gothic Revival’. Carol Richards argues that ‘... the choice of Gothic rather than the prevailing classical style signified not so much dissent as the conscious use of architectural style to create an emblem of the British identity, tradition and legislative authority.’ She furthers the point by saying ‘This represented continuity with the past, but an improved version of it’ In conclusion I believe it is fair to say that Barry and Pugin had a symbiotic relationship but this I simply mean that they worked together for their mutal benefit. Neither Barry or Pugin could have achieved such a magnificent building design alone. It can be said with some certainty that the official recognition from the Royal Commission encouraged other architects to adopted a ‘Gothic’ style too and resulted in the ‘Gothic’ domination of most architectural projects for rest of the nineteenth century. In terms of ‘traditon’ and ‘dissent’ it is clear that the ‘establishment’ were ready for something new, a new era, and as is the case with most ‘establishments’ they prefer to use methods which has been tried and tested which in this case was ‘Gothic’. As such we moved from the ‘tradition’ of ‘classical’ to the ‘dissent’ into ‘gothic’, ‘gothic’ however was a previous ‘tradition’. Barry and Pugin had put their own signature on ‘gothic’ as we know they merged ‘Elizabethen’ period with ‘Gothic’ style resulting in something new yet, still somehow familiar and as such can still be termed ‘dissent’. Essay Plan Intro – Brief outine why palace needed to be re-built – Fire 1834 Paragraphs 1. What happened next – commission of palace of Westminster & competition 2. Winners – Barry & Pugin 3. Hidden classical features – Barry & Pugin, discord 4. Desgin of New Palace – Elizabethen & Gothic merge 5. Barry – his input 6. Pugin – his imput – description of inside 7. Pugin – outside features 8. Barry & Pugin – collaboration 9. Collaboration – greatest commission of 19th century Conclusion – clarify ‘tradition’ and ‘dissent’ Notes I really tried to stick to the essay plan but as always it is easier said than done. I feel I achieved it to the best part.