One section of Rafael Moneo’s “On Typology” that I found to be of particular interest, and that I would like to focus on occurs on pages 28/29, when he made the comparison between Quatremere and Durand. Beginning with Quatremere, Moneo cites the Frenchman as the first to posit a “coherent and explicit formulation of an idea of type in architectural theory” (Moneo 28), late in the 1700’s. Quatremere’s concept of type, as I understand it through Moneo’s description, is one which believes that architecture is more so a product of human form than it does shape it, and that it is “intimately related with ‘needs an nature'”(Moneo 28). One quote which I highlighted with special emphasis was when Moneo wrote Quatremere’s type “was in this way identified with the logic of form connected with reason and use, and, throughout history, whenever an architectural object was related to some form, a kind of logic was implied, creating a deep bond with the past” (Moneo 28). All of this is then contrasted with the shifting ideology of the nineteenth century, where Moneo tries to illuminate the “difference between Quatremere and someone like Durand.” My understanding of Durand’s contrasting views come from such snippets as: “these elements, [pillars, foundations, vaults], must be freed from the tyranny of the Orders” (Moneo 28), “These parts [porches, vestibules, staircases], ordered and presented like a repertoire of models, constitute the materials available to the architect” (Moneo 29), and “both mechanisms are essentially contrary to Quatremere’s idea of type as based on elemental and primitive forms” (Moneo 29). While I find the idea of Quatremere’s type-by-form, form-by-nature approach to be a romantic acknowledgement of architectures contribution to art, I feel that his tends towards the earlier “pre-enlightened” ideologies, where Durand’s idea of type is more reflective of modernist, post-enlightenment ideology, and is therefor more consequential in the architecture which has since evolved leading to present day. There is a part of my rational mind that tries to boil down the differences in these to theories to the most fundamental level possible, and what I come up with is form vs function approach to typology as an area of architectural theory. While I feel I can anticipate certain arguments that Quatremere might have made against Durand were he given the chance, I don’t feel Durand’s concept of typology compromises on the overall form of a building, where Quatremere’s might compromise on the function, or “program” as they say, of a building. Moneo uses Durand’s Recueil et parallele des edifices de tout to explain that, “temples churches, squares, and markets were categorized according to their program or use–categories which interested him more than their forms” (Moneo 29) and in this regard I agree with Durand. A prioritization of function over form in typology does not eliminate the necessary space for form to thrive, and I believe that, in accordance with modernist thought, that function/program should play the primary role in typology. To support this I would like to cite my favorite quote regarding Durand which goes, “Durand would have understood, no doubt, why the battle of styles exploded with such virulence in the middle of the century. “Style” was something that could be added later, a final formal characterization given to the elements after the structure of the building had been defined through a composition, which somehow reflected its program” (Moneo 29).
Moneo, Rafael. On Typology, 1978.