Type and character in the discourse of architecture

Abstract

Architecture Parlante: a reiterated late-18th century topos was that architecture should ‘speak’ in the sense of expressing its purpose
or function. However, communicating requires a language, so how are we supposed to understand what architecture is ‘saying’ or trying to ‘say’? Like any other language, it will be largely arbitrary, produced and reproduced on the basis of conventions confirmed and propagated through repetition and custom. The discourse of the classical architectural tradition, in addition to what were named the ‘architectural orders’, operated with ‘type’ and ‘character’ as inherent aspects of any
work claiming to be architecture. Although the ‘orders’ were consolidated relatively recently – in Sebastiano Serlio’s Book IV published in 1537 – the ‘types’ were already detailed by Vitruvius in De Architectura’s extensive taxonomy of temples and detailed description of the theaters distribution. The ‘character’ concept refers to the ancient sense of decorum, which in turn is subsumed to verisimilitude as defined in Aristotle’s Poetics. This essay aims to describe the historical and critical fortune of the notions
of ‘type’ and ‘character’ within the boundaries of the classical architectural
tradition’s disciplinary system.