Talk:Palladian architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Palladian architecture is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 7, 2004.
Version 0.5      (Rated FA-Class)
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


I am thinking of making some major edits to this page, probably a complete re-write, if anybody has any views, objection, or suggestions - I would love to hear from them Giano 11:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Be bold. Be ruthless here! This entry calls for your guiding hand. --Wetman 12:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, this page doesn't need a rewrite — it needs a write. :) Doops 18:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I am a non native English speaker, I suspect there is a hint of an idiom here please explain Giano 19:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, it was a joke. I was saying that the page doesn't need to be re-written: it just needs to be written in the first place, since right now it's a very brief stub. Using the word "write" as a noun is neither standard English nor an idiom — it's just something I made up for the sake of the joke. Doops 20:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry late at night; will do best to attune sense of humour, normally pretty acute Giano 20:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am thinking perhaps this page now needs to be moved to, say, Palladian Architecture with palladian as a divert page, anyone have a view one way or the other on this? Giano 14:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved page, to a title which is a noun rather than adjective, also palladian alone seemed rather abstract, Palladian Architecture is more definite and concrete Giano 11:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite 2[edit]

does anyone manage this page? can I re-write it? I study palladian architecture and this article is neither concise, accurate nor complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. Interested editors contribute and monitor changes, but Wikipedia is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". See here for policy on article 'ownership'. Might I suggest you read Help:Contents/Getting started. William Avery (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
A Wikipedia page is never complete, and with a million or more editors often never concise as is desrirable (as you will find). However, which part do you feel is innacurate? Then perhaps we can find who contributed which facts and ascertain the accuracy rather than remove information hurriedly. The page has become a little bottom heavy on American Palladianism, but that is only to be expected and tolerated when one bears in mind the nationality of a large proportion of Wikipedia's editors. In my experience, one day a Russian or Welshman is quite likely to pop over and suddenly the balance will change again. Wikipedia is largely a matter of allowing so much and then knowing when to say whoa. If you want to write a "perfect page" that will always be concise and perfect then you will find Wikipedia frustrating in the extreme. However, as I said, innacuracies need sorting and putting right.  Giano  14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest that before you charge in and slash and burn your way through this article that you register as an editor - not required but if nothing else it is a courtsey to other editors who might wish to chat with you elsewhere - and that you note that this article has been fairly heavily edited for 5 years and sort of keep that in mind. In any case I'm looking forward to whatever you are about to do. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Prime Example of Palladianism in England[edit]

When I learned my art history, I was taught by the Janson and Janson book that the #1 example of Palladianism outside of those buildings made by Palladio himself was the work of Inigo Jones, and, in particular, the Houses of Parliament in London. Whether the Jansons were right or not, a whole bunch of folks will have learned the same thing, so it might be good to mention Jones and the Parliament buildings. The point was that English Palladianism had only about a 10 year run, then the Baroque broke out, and then Palladianism came back around the 30's. Just a thought. Geogre 01:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any work Jones did on the old Palace of Westminster would have been lost in the fire which necessitated its present rebuilding; his most famous work is the nearby Banqueting House part of the (also now destroyed) Palace of Whitehall. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? Doops 04:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palladian window[edit]

It seems a pity to distract this important and handsome article with a minor disambiguation at the head! If the fact that Palladian redirects here is the reason the stub Palladian window needs to be mentioned so conspicuously, I think it better to have Palladian redirect to Palladian window, with the disambiguation at the head of that. I have so edited.--Bishonen 23:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tons and tons of important (and even handsome) articles open with a minor disambiguation. It's just the reality of our encylopedia's un-browsable format; I don't think it really detracts or distracts. To avoid this relatively minor disambig, do you really think it's better for Palladian to redirect to the relatively minor window article? Many people refer to "Palladian architecture" simply as "the Palladian" (as in, "My doghouse is a fine example of the Palladian."); that's why the article was originally located at Palladian even if that is, technically, an adjective. I think Palladian should continue to redirect here. Doops 04:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Broken Windows and Links[edit]

I have never heard the term 'The Palladian' without a qualifying noun following it, in fact 'The Palladian' sounds rather like a nightclub, gaming house or bidet. Perhaps this is not the case in USA, but in Europe (home of palladianism) it is always qualified by a noun. I have mentioned to Doops that I thought the window page should perhaps be incorporated, but he felt this important feature should remain seperate, which I am happy for that page to be, if he feels so. I have, however, written a few words on the main page on this important subject, and those few words contain a link to Doops page, for people seeking further information. I think perhaps palladian should link to Palladian Architecture as in many many articles 'palladian' as an adjective followed by a noun (eg Church, mansion or whatever)refers to palladian architecture.

Perhaps the page needs to be moved to Palladianism, ideally perhaps it wants to be part of a larger page with Palladio, but Wikepedia frowns on long and informative pages! Which Palladio would become if this page were added; especially as there is a long way to go yet, the page has only mentioned Italian and English Palladianism, barely touched on American and Irish, and we half of europe left. Giano 15:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, this definitely should not be combined with Palladio. It's not just a matter of page length: that page is a bio of a specific individual; this page is a description of an architectural style — and, indeed, when you hear the word "Palladian" it's more likely than not that the reference is to the 18th-century style whose connection to Palladio himself is at best removed by time and interpreters. As for Irish & American Palladianism — well, those are without doubts offshoots of English Palladianism, and could pretty well be treated along with it. (By the way, although I know that Irish Palladianism is very famous, I would have to say that here in America, on the other hand, you actually don't hear the term very often at all.) Doops 16:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well Doops, now is your opportunity to change that sad fact Giano 17:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Before I vote on the FAC[edit]

Some matters:

  1. The first image is left aligned. I like left alignment varying with right alignment, but, in this case, it conflicts with the table of contents on my screen. Since I have a pretty common screen resolution for PC users, the conflict will probably hit other folks as well. At the risk of some monotony, I recommend right alignment or lower placement for the first image.
  2. The "porch." It seems to me that what Palladio was working up was the stoa -- the Greek porch that gave Stoicism its name (basically, a roofed colonnade that allowed winds to blow through and yet kept people cool and dry). I mention it because a reference to the stoa makes his revivalism and Classicism clear.
  3. Capitalization: Inasmuch as Palladianism is based on the proper noun, I had thought that it was always capitalized.

More as I find them. Geogre 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Porch:" Portico is the operative word. The porch that was being worked up was more like the portico of the Pantheon, Rome. Good job here BTW! Grrece was more an idea than an objective source, until late 18th century engravings. --Wetman 01:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have capitalized all the P's in Palladian (I hope) - regarding your other points Geogre, I'm sure the image can be moved wherever you want it, Have a look at where it is now.
I am not aware that Palladio was influenced by the architecture of Greece, any more than in so much as early Roman architecture was similar in appearance and style to the earlier Greek. It would take several pages to explain the subtle differences. If you have a source that contests Palladio was a firm disciple of Vitruvius and what is generally accepted as Roman architecture that would be fascinating to see; but without a distinguished source it would be 'POV' to make such an assertion in the article. As I say in the final section (Decline of Palladianism), eventually Palladianism did have Greek motifs and influences, even Egyptian, introduced circa the turn of the 19th century (depending on where you live) at that point the style ceased to be called Palladianism and became neoclassical. So any further discussion of the style would be off subject on a page called Palladian architecture.
I don't think Palladio was leading up to a re-introduction of the Stoa, I suppose one could argue (I would not) that they inspired the type of, sometimes curved, colonnades in St. Peter's Basilica, and later at the baroque Sans Souci at Potsdam; but those buildings are not in the Palladian manner. Palladio sometimes used curved collonades to link various services to his villas, but they really are not the same thing. The Stoa (of a sort) occasionally appeared in the 19th century palaces of the Crimea, but Russian architecture, post Bartolomeo Rastrelli, even when based on Palladian or classical values is a minefield, that I'm reluctant to tread in. Giano 12:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since writing the above, I have just had a look through a couple of books of Palladio's plans, while he loved arcades, even at villas such as Villa Godi, Villa Emo, Villa Barbaro and Palazzo Chiericati which may appear to have an open colonnade, they are in fact all closed on one side. Palladio would have been aware of the possibility of a Stoa, but it seems he chose not to design one. I am quite prepared to be corrected on this, bit I can find not one example.The collonades on each side of the Queens House at Greenwich are open, but this is an isolated example, and not designed by PalladioGiano 12:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

changes to opening[edit]

The opening was misleading in a number of ways. Firstly the Palladian style did not 'spread' over the Veneto and the rest of Europe until it reached Britain and Ireland. The 'Palladian' movement is a specifically British style that was derived from an interpretation of Palladio's books, not from the geographical spread of a building style.

For this reason I think the expression 'true Palladian' is inappropriate. When used here it seems to mean Palladio's own work. However the term 'Palladian architecture' (usually pronounced with a long 'a' in the middle, unlike the architect's own name) specifically refers to the English style that spread to other countries that were controlled or influenced by Britain. The content of the article actually makes this clear, but the introduction does not.

I've made a few changes. Changing the section heading was good, but there was still a confusing reference to "true Palladian" in the opening. That's been changed and moved to the section on Palladio's own work. JHCC 17:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. Palladianism arrived in England circa 1620, courtesy of Inigo Jones, as the article makes quite clear .
  2. There are examples of Palladianism all over Europe.
  3. The pronunciation of Palladio or Palladianism depends entirely upon which area of Europe, or state of America one was reared, long 'a' or short 'a' is really rather immaterial to this article.
  4. It was my clear intention that 'True Palladianism' should refer to buildings designed according to the strict rules defined by Palladio. Any design deviating from these strict rules would not be 'True Palladianism'. I don't think it possible to explain a deviation without mention of what is being deviated from. Giano 22:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1. Yes, Inigo Jones's work is often labelled Palladian, though it's rather isolated.
2. I'm not sure that there are 'examples of Palladianism all over Europe'. If so, these should be mentioned. I suspect they are rather isolated examples. In so far as there was an identifiably Palladian 'movement', rather than isolated examples, it was Anglo-American. The content of the article de facto accepts this.
3. Yes, of course. It's not relevant to the article. I just put that comment in as an aside. In so far as it had a 'purpose', it was to stress the isolation of English Palladianism from its supposed master.
4. Well Palladio himself did not always keep to his rules did he? If that's the case, where is 'True Palladianism' to be found? I still find this term misleading because the expression 'Palladianism' refers primarily to the 18th C movement, so claiming that Palladianism is not true Palladianism is both confusing and misleading. Perhaps the expression 'true to Palladio's principles' might be better. Paul13:31, 14 Dec 2004

Self-evidently, if Palladianism refers to a style inspired by Pallido, true Palladians cannot refer to the works of theat man, unless you wish to agrue that he was inspired by himself. True Palladianism means those buildings that adhered most closely to Palladio's style. And Palladianism is not an insular British development at all, neither did it spring up on that island ex nihilo. The means by which this building style arrived in Britain need to be discussed in the article. Filiocht 09:17, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Palladianism was not 'an insular British development' and that it did not spring up 'ex nihilo'. As far as I'm aware no-one has argued for the latter position, as for the former, we need non-British examples of Palladianism on the British model if you are to demonstrate that this style was not distinctively British. If you provide such examples, they can be included. Paul13:36, 14 Dec 2004
Rather than get in an argument over what is "True" Palladianism and what is not, why not stick with the article's definition of Palladian Architecture as a style inspired by Palladio's work and writings, and then discuss individual examples in terms of how closely they follow the style and rules as laid out by Mr. P. After all, the article is about the development of a stylistic tradition, not just its originator. That said, great work so far. JHCC 15:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sebastiano Serlio[edit]

I am trying to put together a short article on "Tutte l'opere d'architettura et prospetiva" so that we do not have that ugly broken link in the middle of this article. So far I have found very little on it, either on Wikipedia or Google. If anyone has any information on it, so that it is not just an unnattractive little stub, then do pop on over to the new article page that I am setting up. Polocrunch 16:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope, though, you'll a) make it a subsection at Sebastiano Serlio where context offers extra strength, or b) condense your final entry to a brief paragraph and insert it at "Serlio's treatise" which is waiting wistfully just for this moment! --Wetman 20:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I eliminated the assertion that Palladio's buildings are "rare". Actually, they've survived pretty well. I substituted "Venice and the Veneto" for "Italy" which seemed unnecessarily broad. --Wetman 13:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Classical" and "Neoclassical"[edit]

Not understanding the difference between Classical and Neoclassiocal produces text like this:

"[Palladian architecture] is a sub-genre of neoclassical architecture. Usually distinguished chronologically from "neoclassical" proper rather than spoken of as an eary version of the same, the original designs by Palladio nevertheless closely follow the casual style of Roman country villas, as opposed to the later style that superceded Palladian, which has an aesthetic more commonly associated with the ancient form because it imitates the clean/severe lines of Roman monuments and government buildings. This distinct emphasis on different classical elements leads to a natural division between these two equally "neoclassical" aesthetics."

This passage doesn't characterize the subject in terms that make the reader see Palladian architecture ("casual style"), and it seems to be innocent of any basic art history reading. Even a careful reading of the relevant Wikipedia articles and links would help here, though Classical architecture badly needs overhauling. --Wetman 11:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

North American Palladianism[edit]

I have removed this from the main article:

Saunders-Hall-Goode Mansion in Northwest Alabama

"Another excellent North American example of Palladian architecture is the Saunders-Hall-Goode Mansion. This impressive structure is located just north of Town Creek, Alabama. The mansion was placed on the National Registry of Historic Places in 1974. The home was built by Rev. Turner Saunders (Sanders) on property purchased in 1833"

Because it is not a very good example of American palladianism, the central entrance is offset, the wings are given too much prominence by ostentatious pediments, if they are to have pediments they should be linked to the house by colonnades or lower segmented wings in short it is a pastiche by an unaccomplished architect, or it has been drastically altered. America has far better examples.

Secondly, the page is about Palladianism in general, and cannot become too orientated on one particular country. Perhaps the time has come for a separate page on the Palladian architecture of North America Giano | talk 21:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My adding Peter Harrison in 1749[edit]

has sort of messed with the later statement that there are only two Pre-American Revolution Palladian building. However I am reluctent to mess with that paragraph yet because . . . . . . . ..... it's so well written. However both Reed (who I added to the References) and and Roth [in A Concise History of American Architecture - which i did not add] mention the Four Books origins of Harrison's library. So . . . .....  ? Carptrash 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Official websites of Woburn Abbey and of Holkham Hall[edit]

Though these websites are not up to the standards demanded by some Wikipedians, they offer official capsule history of the two houses and their occupants. Part of judging the high quality of this article is in comparing it to relevant official sites. One deletes a reference and the next comes along and demands it. --Wetman 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet figured out footnotes[edit]

and since my time on wikipedia is now very limited, I won't, but the Philip Johnson quote from the Lewis, O'Connor book is on page 170. Carptrash 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Two paras on Palladianism in N America removed[edit]

One editor removed two paragraphs about Palladianism in N America, after another flagged them as lacking citations. The prose in these paras could also have been better. Please reinstate any parts for which you can provide citations. --Philcha (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This kind of blanking is called vandalism when un-logged-in IPs do it. The blanked text was perfectly mainstream and sensible: blanking text does not genuinely serve the Wikipedia reader. Personally, I render my edits foolproof by providing citations for even the most obvious observations, to satisfy our architectural critics in Buffalo Jump or wherever.--Wetman (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it's vandalism when people remove content that conflicts with WP:V and / or WP:NPOV. Vandals also don't usually post diffs and a rationale on the Talk page. Note the request "Please reinstate any parts for which you can provide citations." --Philcha (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the content, after it was tagged as uncited by Mattisse, An editor-en passent who wants to nominate the page for FARC. I very much suspect Mattisse's motives here, but frankly, I am too tired of her to be bothered to explore them. Perhaps one of her probabtionary mentors, more interested in her than I, would care to deal with this. Giano (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Meason House[edit]

Does the Isaac Meason House get coverage in general sources? Historic preservation documentation that I've seen, including the sources currently in the article, speak of it as a premier example of American Palladianism, but I'm loth to mention it in this general article unless it should be considered highly representative of the style as a whole. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It is a good example, but the problem is that this is a general article and we have to be careful that it does not begin to read like a list or inventory. I think the Hammond-Harwood House (which is there at the moment) is probably the better example. I have always been surprised that Mount Vernon is not more written up, but that does not even give Palldianism a mention on its own page. I find early American architecture a minefield of personal opinion and things hung on the wrong hook, so am loathe to get involved. As far as I'm concerned Wikipedia's American architectural experts can decide what is in and out of this page, just so long as each countries length is kept in proportion. Not counting Italy which has the real thing, England probably has the most examples of Palladianism, but even that section has to be kept concise to maintain interest and attention.  Giano  13:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)