5/25 Founding of Rome III

Seated in the Circus Maximus:

Wednesday began with a discussion of theater typologies, public architecture, and their relation to the population as a whole. The three main types of theaters used in the ancient world were:

1. The Circus – entirely a Roman idea resembling a Greek stadium except the Romans used theirs for chariot races. It had its origins in military parades, wherein the standards of war were returned (if they had been previously stolen) and/or paraded around the designated area (if they had been won in battle).

2. The Greek theater – originally conceptualized as a celebration by the cult of Dionysius as he leaves on December 21^st and returns on March 21^st. Elements of these rituals slowly evolved over time into what we conceive of as an actual theater, with spectators, an orchestra, and scenery. While his theory is backed by plenty of evidence, Doug was sure to point out that the evolution of the Greek theater is still very much up for debate, as the written record is not substantial enough for us to piece together a complete and accurate narrative.

3. The Arena – the most notable example of this type is the Colisseum, a term applied to it by a monk living in England around 700 AD named Bede. The proper term for this structure is the Flavian Amphitheater. Originally associated with funerary events, it came to be most recognized for its gladiatorial combats, animal exhibitions, and mock naval battles.

One of the more thought-provoking that was brought up especially in terms of the Colisseum and public architecture was that sporting events did not exist in structures this size from the time that it went into disrepair until the advent of the modern Olympics in Greece in 1896. I find this fact simply fascinating; that society did not have use for large event complexes for the better part of a millennium. Sporting events in the middle ages and Renaissance were simply relegated to smaller scale complexes that did not nearly hold the number of people that the Colisseum could, a figure estimated to be around 50,000 people capacity. We could then further discuss this aspect of society being a microcosm for the complete and utter destruction of large civilizations as a whole. During the middle ages, at least in Western society, the largest institution was the church; large expanses of empires tied together with networks of local rulers and a vast system of supply-chain logistics did not exist at the scale of the height of the Roman Empire. These public buildings were a symbol of Rome’s dominance and capabilities as a society, and as their whole way of life came screeching to a halt, so did the continual use of the Colisseum.

We can look at other public buildings such as the Arch of Constantine, built between 312 – 315 AD, and tell a similar story about the decline of the Roman Empire. Commemorating his victory over Maxentius, this arch was in fact put together by pieces made up of other monuments. This alone could signify a slight decline in power, simply because they had to take from other structures those parts which before would have been carved by the most talented artists and craftsmen in Rome. Underlying the visual impact of the Humpty Dumpty Arch is a sub-level of psychological decline: Constantine was moving the capital to Asia Minor and naming it, aptly, Constantinople. The mental impact of this event cannot be understated. For centuries Rome was at the apex of the civilized world: it had the most wealth of any empire, the grandest structures the world had ever seen, a fully functioning democracy, and the Pax Romana for a time. Both the moving of the capital and the legalization of Christianity, which is ironic because Rome had been persecuting Christians and trying to rid them from gaining a foothold, both occurring under Constantine’s reign dealt a severe blow to Western civilization from which it would not recover.

Gave a presentation in front of the fountains at the Pantheon tonight. These presentations cover a wide range of buildings in each of the cities we visit, and the goal is to get us acclimated to sharing information we learned from researching each building. We went through the typical gamut of its historical timeline, from when it was built, to when it was restored, its subsequent conversion into a Christian church and therefore its survival into the 21^st century, and now its use mainly as a tourist attraction and one of the main photography spots of the city. One thing that I learned during the presentation is that the structure attached to the back of the Pantheon was actually a bath complex that stretched away from the Pantheon, now covered over by modern buildings, shops, and apartments. We couldn’t visit the inside since our presentation started at 7pm and the doors close at 8pm. Nonetheless, we were lectured by Doug on the vast network of supply-chain logistics that the Romans were masters at even in the early years after Christ’s birth. Specifically, the fact that the 8 giant 22-ton columns that hold up its front portico came from Egypt makes you wonder how the Romans were able to coordinate this amount of material and transport it all over the ancient world, from Ireland to modern-day Iraq. As well, the fact that they could erect such large structures puts into your mind a question of how they were able to stand up a large column made of solid marble and place it exactly into place within a few inches without dropping it. Our fascination as a society with erecting large structures fascinates me. I guess if it didn’t, I would not want to pursue a career in architecture. It brings up larger questions about our ego and desire to be the best and most powerful at everything we do. Our collective egos are one main reason why we erect such large structures. “Look what I can do” “Look how powerful our society is” “Don’t mess with us: if we can move 22 ton columns, we can surely wipe out your civilization”

It’s the same way with skyscrapers, I feel. Each country wants to have the title of tallest skyscrapers, yet where does that get us? The Arab Emirates have the title, but I don’t believe that they have solutions to house people in an appropriate way. The Romans built 90’ tall statues to their emperors and gods/goddesses and were extremely excessive in the Imperial period in terms of building unnecessary structures. Not to say this is the reason their empire collapsed, but when a society gets to a point that they build courtyards, forums, and other needless public buildings, a decline cannot be far in the future. Other structures such as the Temple of Mars Ultor, which was simply a piece of public propaganda, did nothing to either alleviate population swelling or create a public environment that would further advance society’s collective knowledge. Yes, it is a temple dedicated to one of their most important gods, and one could consider this ‘architecture’ in the sense that it used a monumental stairway and classically designed columns, entablatures, and portico. However, I consider architecture to be that which has the public in mind and can advance our society as a whole; not simply a piece of propaganda built by a seemingly selfish emperor for his own personal gain.

We can learn many lessons from Rome, as you can see: what to build, what not to build, how to approach urban design, the importance we place on certain public buildings and their influence on our everyday lives. I tend to think of Rome as a giant experiment in architecture in order so that we can learn from the past. Often times, as in the case of Le Corbusier’s plan for Paris, we can’t test these ideas without first proposing to knock down the entire historical center of a major metropolitan city. Yet Rome seems to me to be a place where experimentation has taken place on a grand scale. Most of these structures are not standing today, yet we do have a written record of most of them and can take from them a sense of the appropriateness architecture should embody.