|
|
 |
|
Monumental Preservation and Everyday Disapearance |
|
written
by leahs2 / 10.24.2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Monumental Architecture vs. the Everyday |
1 of 1 |
|
| |
Assignment |
| |
The Roman house was cool, dark, and deep. The private space was modest: the doorways were square (as opposed to arched) and much lower (as opposed to the height of basilical arches). The walls were thick stone, solid, and flat. The space was intimate and small. The public spaces were grand and large, often able to fit mass crowds (we all know Romans are famous for their impeccable crowd control).
The private space was internal and close knit; the individual could take up much of the space. Public buildings were external and grand; the individual was tiny in the space. The house had a basic layout with simple, clear purposes: dining room, kitchen, bathing room, sleeping room. Public spaces always had a distinctly functional purpose married to its architecture whether it was to inspire devotion to the empire, provide a mass gathering space, or stand as a house of worship. Both private and public spaces carried the distinct Roman practicality in which architecture blended with functionality.
But why is it that everyday architecture is not well preserved? Casa Romane del Celio was only discovered because a monumental piece (a church basilica) was built on top. The home is simple and private experience, individual, alone, solemn. While Romans live in the everyday, they have a distinct appreciation and expectation for public architecture. The heyday of Roman power and glory is represented by mass amounts of monumental architecture. Public architecture holds the spotlight because Romans wish to display their breathtaking architecture and are proud of their rich history.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
