I’ve had this quote from The Fountainhead at the back of my thoughts for fairly a while:
“Look,” stated Roark. “The well-known flutings on the well-known columns–what are they there for? To cover the joints in wooden – when columns had been manufactured from wooden, solely these aren’t, they’re marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wooden. Picket beams, the way in which they needed to be laid when individuals started to construct picket shacks. Your Greeks took marble they usually made copies of their picket constructions out of it, as a result of others had accomplished it that approach. Then your masters of the Renaissance got here alongside and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wooden.
is any reality to this, that the varieties we see in “classical” Greco-Roman structure – within the well-known marble/limestone buildings – is de facto only a derivation from the extra archaic wooden constructions (that are nearly solely absent from our trendy consciousness as a result of they clearly didn’t survive) and it was solely in these wooden constructions that every one of those architectural tropes had been really structurally essential/practical, and by the point they turned masonary they had been simply copied due to stylistic conference (like this)?
And, in that case, is there any good archaeological/historic proof or sources that may make clear this course of?
(edit: hyperlink mounted)
