|
|
 |
|
Monumental Architecture vs. the Everyday |
|
written
by minhan / 10.24.2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Monumental Architecture vs. the Everyday |
1 of 1 |
|
| |
Assignment |
| |
The private space and the public space to me do not differ in their overall purpose. Other than the apparent differences of size, each use their physical space to denote power, prestige, rank and stature. The case Romane del Celio is a blunt example of the powerful being victorious. At first the area was full of privately owned local shops. A wealthy man then bought all these shops and created his own house. Afterwards the powerful Church took over this area. This succession of ownership clearly shows how the most powerful got the spoils. Similarly, this succession is also seen on a bigger scale such as the conversion of pagan temples to Christian churches when Christianity surpassed paganism.
Both monumental and everyday architecture took advantage of first impressions to symbolize importance. Monumental Architectures such as Trajan’s Column were built to show the owner’s greatness over his predecessors. In this example, Trajan used the monument to share this message to all that entered the area. His use of many schemes and details of the carvings flaunts his wealth. This flaunting is also seen when looking at the interior of the roman house. Filled with frescoes and high marble walls, the rooms were ways to show the prestige of the owner to guests that wandered in. The most decorations were always displayed in the most used public rooms. The more extravagant and skillfully decorations meant higher prestige. This idea was seen when looking at the three layers of floorings corresponding to the three changes of ownership. The original flooring was very barren, while the next succession had marble flooring, finally the church added mosaic floorings. With each succession of ownership, the floors got more decorated, correlating to the increasing prestige of the owners.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
