INTRODUCTION:A history of architecture is a record of mans efforts to build beautifully.

The erection of structures devoid of beauty is mere building, a trade and not an art. Only when the idea of beauty is added to that of use does a structure take its place among works of ar chitecture. We may, then, define architecture as the art which seeks to harmonize in a building the requirements of utility and of beauty. It is the most useful of the fine arts and the noblest of the useful arts.

STYLE:Style is character expressive of definite conceptions, as of grandeur, gaiety, or solemnity. An historic style is the particular phase, the characteristic manner of design, which prevails at a given time and place. It is not the result of mere accident or caprice, but of intellectual, moral, social, religious, and even political conditions. Gothic architecture could never have been invented by the Greeks, nor could the Egyptian styles have grown up in Italy. Each style is based upon some fundamental principle springing from its surrounding civilization, which undergoes successive developments until it either reaches perfection or its possibilities are exhausted, after which a period of decline usually sets in. This is followed either by a reaction and the introduction of some radically new principle leading to the evolution of a new style, or by the final decay and extinction of the civilization and its replacement by some younger and more virile element.

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE:The history of architecture appears as a connected chain of causes and effects succeeding each other without break, each style growing out of that which preceded it, or springing out of the fecundating contact of a higher with a lower civilization. To study architectural styles is therefore to study a branch of the history of civilization.

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT:First of all well discuss brief historic development in the field of architecture. After this brief history, well discuss the different architectural styles separately. Architecture appears to have originated in the Nile xxiv valley. A second centre of development is found in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, not uninfluenced by the older Egyptian art. Through various channels the Greeks inherited from both Egyptian and Assyrian art, the two influences being discernible even through the strongly original aspect of Greek architecture. The Romans in turn, adopting the external details of Greek architecture, transformed its substance by substituting the Etruscan arch for the Greek construction of columns and lintels. They developed a complete and original system of construction and decoration and spread it over the civilized world, which has never wholly outgrown or abandoned it. With the fall of Rome and the rise of Constantinople these forms underwent in the East another transformation, called the Byzantine, in the development of Christian domical church architecture. In the North and West, meanwhile, under the growing institutions of the papacy and of the monastic orders and the emergence of a feudal

civilization out of the chaos of the Dark Ages, the constant preoccupation of architecture was to evolve from the basilica type of church a vaulted structure, and to adorn it throughout with an appropriate dress of constructive and symbolic ornament. Gothic architecture was the outcome of this preoccupation, and it prevailed throughout northern and western Europe until nearly or quite the close of the fifteenth century. During this fifteenth century the Renaissance style matured in Italy, where it speedily triumphed over Gothic fashions and produced a marvellous series of civic monuments, palaces, and churches, adorned with forms borrowed or imitated from classic Roman art. This influence spread through Europe in the sixteenth century, and ran a course of two centuries, after which a period of servile classicism was followed by a rapid decline in taste. To this succeeded the eclecticism and confusion of the nineteenth century, to xxv which the rapid growth of new requirements and development of new resources have largely contributed. In Eastern lands three great schools of architecture have grown up contemporaneously with the above phases of Western art; one under the influence of Mohammedan civilization, another in the Brahman and Buddhist architecture of India, and the third in China and Japan. The first of these is the richest and most important. Primarily inspired from Byzantine art, always stronger on the decorative than on the constructive side, it has given to the world the mosques and palac es of Northern Africa, Moorish Spain, Persia, Turkey, and India. The other two schools seem to be wholly unrelated to the first, and have no affinity with the architecture of Western lands. Of Mexican, Central American, and South American architecture so little is known, and that little is so remote in history and spirit from the styles above enumerated, that it belongs rather to archaeology than to architectural history, and will not be considered in this work.

DIFFERENT STYLES UNDER DIFFERENT PERIODS:Different styles which I am going to discuss are mentioned as under.
y y y y y y y y y y y

Pre historic Architecture Classical Architecture Medieval architecture Renaissance Architecture Baroque Architecture Neo classical/Greek Revival Art Deco Arts and Crafts movement Modern Movement Post Modern Movement Deconstructivism

Prehistoric Architecture:It is impossible to trace the early stages of the process by which true architecture grew out of the first rude attempts of man at building. So far as the monuments testify, no savage people ever raised itself to civilization, and no primitive method of building was ever developed into genuine architecture, except by contact with some existing civilization of which it appropriated the spirit, the

processes, and the forms. How the earliest architecture came into existence is as yet an unsolved problem. Primitive architecture is therefore a subject for the archaeologist rather than the historian of art, and needs here only the briefest mention. If we may judge of the condition of the primitive races of antiquity by that of the savage and barbarous peoples of our own time, they required only the simplest kinds of buildings, though the purposes which they served were the same as those of later times in civilized communities. A hut or house for shelter, a shrine of some sort for worship, a stockade for defence, a cairn or mound over the grave of the chief or hero, were provided out of the simplest materials, and these often of a perishable nature. Poles supplied the framework; wattles, skins, or mud the walls; thatching or stamped earth the roof. Only the simplest tools were needed for such elementary construction. There was ingenuity and patient labor in work of this kind; but there was no planning, no fitting together into a complex organism of varied materials shaped with art and handled with science. Above all, there was no progression toward higher ideals of fitness and beauty. Prehistoric architectural structures that remain partially intact today were typically religious in nature, because religious architecture was made of more permanent materials (like brick and stone). Such structures vary dramatically in terms of style and appearance, but reveal much about the building technologies (and, where there are engravings or paintings) the cultural histories of peoples. These are our strongest link to the distant past, and demonstrate at once how far we have come as a species and how much we still rely on beliefs and stories to sustain us.

Classical Architecture:Classical architecture falls into two primary sub-categories: Greek and Roman architecture. Greek architecture:The Greeks were perhaps most well known for the subtle and highly calculated visual effects or illusions produced by their incredibly crafted buildings. They would use devices like a subtle taper (narrowing) of a column to change the apparent size, depth or proportion of a structure. Rigid geometries defined their temples and ornaments applied to them. Doric, Ionic and Corinthian Orders were introduced by Greek people. With the orders as their chief decorative element the Greeks built up a splendid architecture of religious and secular monuments. Their noblest works were temples, which they designed with the utmost simplicity of general scheme, but carried out with a mastery of proportion and detail which has never been surpassed.

TYPES OF GREEK TEMPLE PLANS. All the temples known to us are of stone, though it is evident from allusions in the ancient writers that wood was sometimes used in early times. The finest temples, especially those of Attica, Olympia, and Asia Minor, were of marble. All the architectural membering was treated with the greatest refinement of design and execution, and the aid of sculpture, both in relief and in the round, was invoked to give splendor and significance to the monument.

CARVED ANTHEMION ORNAMENT. ATHENS.

ROMAN ARCHITECTURE:Roman architecture tended to focus less on religious structures and more on public or civic ones. In terms of style, the Romans borrowed much from the Greeks but were considerably less interested in subtly - preferring grandeur and opulence instead. Their buildings became monuments to their pride and power more so than examples of their cunning and creativity. The architects of Rome marvellously extended the range of their art, and gave it a flexibility by which it accommodated itself to the widest variety of materials and conditions. They made the arch and vault the basis of their system of design, employing them on a scale previously undreamed of, and in combinations of surpassing richness and majesty. They systematized their methods of construction so that soldiers and barbarians could execute the rough mass of their buildings, and formulated the designing of the decorative details so that artisans of moderate skill could execute them with good effect. They carried the principle of repetition of motives to its utmost limit, and sought to counteract any resulting monotony by the scale and splendor of the design. Above all they developed planning into a fine art, displaying their genius in a wonderful variety of combinations and in an unfailing sense of the demands of constructive propriety, practical convenience, and artistic effect. Where Egyptian or Greek architecture shows one type of plan, the Roman shows a score.

MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE:Medieval architecture is perhaps most well known for the production of incredible Gothic churches. Religious architecture was again at the forefront of society, and in a culture where very few people could read the stories depicted through sculptures and engravings were critical for telling Biblical stories to believers. Medieval churches emphasized heaven by accentuating the thinness of structural elements and using visual devices to focus one's eye up toward the heavens.

Medieval architects were also less exacting in their execution of buildings than classical architects, allowing individual craftsmen to create specific sculptures within the overall system that weren't required to match symmetrically with others. The twelfth century was an era of transition in society, as in architecture. The ideas of Church and State were becoming more clearly defined in the common mind. In the conflict between feudalism and royalty the monarchy was steadily gaining ground. The problem of human right was beginning to present itself alongside of the problem of human might. The relations between the crown, the feudal barons, the pope, bishops, and abbots, differed widely in France, Germany, England, and other countries. The struggle among them for supremacy presented itself, therefore, in varied aspects; but the general outcome was essentially the same. The church began to appear as something behind and above abbots, bishops, kings, and barons. The supremacy of the papal authority gained increasing recognition, and the episcopacy began to overshadow the monastic institutions; the bishops appearing generally, but especially in France, as the champions of popular rights. The pointed arch, so commonly regarded as the most characteristic feature of the Gothic styles, was merely an incidental feature of their development. The pointer arch was adopted to remedy the difficulties encountered in the construction of oblong vaults. It is obvious that where a narrow semi cylindrical vault intersects a wide one, it produces either what are called penetrations.

Gothic architecture may be defined as that system of structural design and decoration which grew up out of the effort to combine, in one harmonious and organic conception, the basilican plan with a complete and systematic construction of groined vaulting. Its development was controlled throughout by considerations of stability and structural propriety, but in the application of these considerations the artistic spirit was allowed full scope for its exercise. Refinement, good taste, and great fertility of imagination characterize the details and ornaments of Gothic structures. While the Greeks in harmonizing the requirements of utility and beauty in architecture approached the problem from the sthetic side, the Gothic architects did the same from the structural side. Their admirably reasoned structures express as perfectly the idea of vastness, mystery, and complexity as do the Greek temples that of simplicity and monumental repose. The excellence of Gothic architecture lay not so much in its individual details as in its perfect adaptation to the purposes for which it was developedits triumphs were achieved in the building of cathedrals and large churches. In the domain of civil and domestic architecture it produced nothing

comparable with its ecclesiastical edifices, because it was the requirements of the cathedral and not of the palace, town-hall, or dwelling, that gave it its form and character.

RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE:Renaissance architecture shifted the focus from religiosity to reason, and, in turn, returned to certain Classical ideals of rigorous geometry and proportion. As such, the prevailing Renaissance style could be described as highly restrictive, formal, symmetrical and ordered, as opposed to the more decorative, creative and sublime work of the Medieval period. This was simply an outgrowth of the philosophy of the times, which believed that science would fix all the wrongs of the world .
y y y y y y y y y y y

Study of man and nature Study and perfection of classical details. Over and above the classical details, the architecture of Renaissance developed design concepts that had a significance far beyond their immediate applications. New ideas about space led to the discovery of perspective which became the artistic standards for next five hundred years. The invention of perspective was the outcome of individualism- the driving force of the Renaissance- and it emphasized the natural rather than the spiritual, in artistic expression. The organization of large urban spaces during the 18th century developed as result of the renaissances wide angle view of the world. It was an intellectual expression of formality that subordinated nature to art and best typified in the gardens of Versailles Spirit of discovery bloomed during the 15th century. Intellectual curiosity led to the scientific inquiry, and this in turn prompted new developments in construction methods and materials that ultimately became the basis of new architecture. The intellectual spirit of Renaissance materialized in the geometry of compositions. In both plan and elevation, symmetry was the rule with axial line as the guide. Architecture was viewed as an art form rather than of construction.

BAROQUE ARCHITECTURE:Baroque architecture can be best understood as both an extension and rejection of Renaissance architecture. While it largely draws on the stylistic motifs and organization of the Renaissance, Baroque architecture deformed perfect geometries - emphasizing, for example, the ellipse instead of the circle. In a way, it was an attempt to test the limits or question the authority of the rigid Renaissance - a time of creative deformations that pushed the boundaries of convention.
y y y y y y

The Baroque had many reasons for comi ng into existence Renaissance architects employed pure classic forms and architecture was chiefly expressed by the limitation of the straight lines. Baroque was an architecture of the curved line. Compositions from this period were asymmetrical, and sometimes dramatic and spectacular The French word baroque means, literally, bizarre or fantastic; and in many cases, that is precisely what it was. Plastic spaces were manipulated, architectural elements were deliberately distorted and laws of nature were often ignored. Baroque architects asserted true artistic freedom.

Baroque was an expression of unusual originality; but at its worst, the result were clumsy, florid, and unmindful of true constructive principles.

ART DECO:Art Deco was a short-lived but highly creative and expressive collection of styles from around Europe that sought to make sense of the industrial revolution, using new materials in strangely dynamic and often organic ways. Due largely to its relative expense and i ncoherence as a movement it did not last long. Most Art Deco architecture was constructed in France - colourful faades and interiors were used on central Paris' fashionable boutiques using expensive materials - stone, marble, wrought iron and gilded woods. The reason for so little Art Deco architecture (compared to Moderne architecture) is that Europe, having been devastated in the Great War, looked more towards renovation than demolition and rebuilding; whereas America underwent a massive new building boom during the Twenties. Art Deco's interest in hand-crafted, limited edition pieces was a problem to modernist designers, and their criticisms brought about a change to the Moderne style. They argued that design should be for everyone, not just the wealthy. This meant accepting the machine to provide designs on a large enough scale. Consequently, forms made by machine had to be seen as objects of beauty. This meant admitting the machine aesthetic into everyday life. For the first time the s traight line became a 'universally' accepted source of beauty.

ARTS AND CRAFT MOVEMENT:y y

y y y

y y y

The Arts and Crafts Movement arose from a rejection of industrialisation and all that it implied. They equated mechanical progress with human misery. The Arts and Crafts Movement also rejected mass production: standardisation, repetition, and perfection. It put a stress on social responsibility: men before machines, and morality before profit. It was a socially and morally driven movement, rooted in romanticism and Christian faiththey bemoaned the loss of the past. Its leading theorists were; William Morris, C.R. Ashbee, and W.R. Lethaby. They had four principles: design unity, joy in labour, individualism, and regionalism. They were concerned with: simplicity, honesty, and truth to materials. The demise of the Arts and Crafts Movement occurred at the end of the first World War. They had proposed a complete change in society, which never happened because not even the leaders of the movement would completely cut themselves off from the prevailing culture of the time. inability to resolve the dichotomy between the democracy of art and craftsmanship. The use of hand labour and fine materials meant Arts and Crafts goods were expensive, and sold only to an elite. Probably the most important legacy of the Arts and Crafts is that it gave us a system by which the contribution of the individual in a mass society could be recognised, and the movement brought with it a high profile, long-lasting campaign for social, moral and aesthetic reform which is still being carried out to this day.

MODERN MOVEMENT:The Modern Movement began in the early 1900's and evolved with the development of new building and transportation technologies, most particularly steel and the automobile (respectively). The modern movement celebrated these new technologies, emphasizing the simplicity, efficiency and speed of them. Some regional Modernists also tried to blend ideals of the Arts and Crafts with their designs. Here is a short list of the most famous, influential and studied Modern architects of the first generation: Mies van der Rohe, LeCorbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright. Of the so-called second generation, it is worth looking at the work of Louis Kahn. Functionalism, in architecture, is the principle that architects should design a building based on the purpose of that building. This statement is less self-evident than it first appears, and is a matter of confusion and controversy within the profession, particularly in regard to modern architecture. Futurist and Expressionism is a part of modern movement.

POST MODERNISM:The Postmodern Movement started in the 1960's as a rejection of the overly functional and undecorated buildings of the Modern Movement. Post-Modernists advocated the reintroduction of creativity, complexity and ornament to buildings in various ways. This movement, however, has been largely criticized in recent years for never being able to resolve its philosophies into aesthetically pleasing buildings. Its most notable proponent, Robert Venturi, is widely respected as a scholar, for example, but largely ignored as an architectural designer. The excesses of the Post-Modern Movement reached a climax in the 1980's, after which time it largely died out as a popular approach to design. Postmodernity in architecture is generally thought to be heralded by the return of "wit, ornament and reference" to architecture in response to the formalism of the International Style of modernism. As with many cultural movements, some of postmodernism's most pronounced and visible ideas can be seen in architecture. The functional and formalized shapes and spaces of the modernist movement are replaced by unapologetically diverse aesthetics: styles collide, form is adopted for its own sake, and new ways of viewing familiar styles and space abound.

DECONSTRUCTIVISM:The Deconstructivist movement is a contentious issue and difficult to speak with authority about, given that many believe it describes our currently predominant style of architecture. Also, many people who are described as its practitioners do not describe themselves using this term. People who consider this a style or movement would characterize it in terms of it being a fragmentation or rearrangement of Modernist forms. Like Modernism and unlike Post-Modernism, the style tends not to include overt symbols with specific meanings. However, it is also anything but sleek or straightforward in its appearance - often being a rearrangement or 'deconstruction' of a pure form. This is said to be in response to deconstructivist philosophies like those of Jacques Derrida, which maintain that everything is subjective and things can have multiple meanings to different people. On this philosophy, it is argued, a 'pure' or 'whole' object is not desirable, but something that can be understood and appreciated by different people in different ways is.