Gronegger’s Workshop

1 Exhibition – 1 Catalogue

Opening: Wednesday, December 06, 2000, 7:00 p.m.

what way is the body an image –
and the building a body,
and in what way is the building an image –
and the body a building?

The exhibition indicates a new series of premises for contemporary architecture by means of an analysis of the past. Gronegger’s own designs argue for an organic formal understanding of proportion which can be derived from simultaneously working on the human body, on ornament and on the volume itself.

In a large number of sketches, film-like sequences of photographs and sculptural experiments found pieces are combined with studies and notes on his search for traces in both Rome and Florence to compose a series of questions directed at modern architecture.

Opening speeches:

Dietmar Steiner
director of the Architekturzentrum Wien

Friedrich Achleitner
architectural theorist

Thomas Gronegger
curator

Guided tours through the exxhibition:
Saturday, December 16, 2000, 3:00 p.m.
Saturday, January 20, 2001, 3:00 p.m.

wednesdays 16
December 13, 2000, 7:00 p.m.
Architekturzentrum Wien

Gronegger’s Workshop: Ornament and Building Today
wednesdays 16 is devoted to the exhibition ’Gronegger’s Workshop – Body, Image and Building’. Following a lecture by Thomas Gronegger on the exhibition, the contemporary relationship between ornamentation and architecture is to be discussed: Is ornament in the post-industrial information society obsolete or have the forms of ornamentation simply changed?

guests:
Gabriele Kaiser, architectural critic
Bettina Götz, ARTEC, architect
Friedrich Kurrent, architect
Manfred Wolff-Plottegg, architect
Paul Katzberger, architect
Thomas Gronegger, artist

host:
Dietmar Steiner

Information / Press:
Ulrike Kahr-Haele
Phone: ++43 1 522 31 15 – 23
@: press@azw.at

Sponsored by:
Stadtplanung Wien
Kunst Bundeskanzleramt
Arch+Ing, W, NÖ, B
Eternit
Schindler AG
Zumtobel Staff

Press release:

1 Exhibition – 1 Catalogue

Press preview: Wednesday, December 06, 2000, 11:00 a.m
Opening: Wednesday, December 06, 2000, 7:00 p.m.

Opening hours: daily 10:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Closing days:
Saturday, December 24, 2000
Sunday, December 25, 2000
Monday, December 26, 2000
Monday, January 01, 2001

Guided tours
Saturday, December 16, 2000, 3:00 p.m.
Saturday, January 20, 2001, 3:00 p.m.

wednesdays 16 – December 13, 2000, 7:00 p.m.

Press / Information:
Ulrike Kahr-Haele
P ++43 1 522 31 15 – 23
F ++43 1 522 31 17
@: press@azw.at

In his workshop Gronegger conducts unorthodox examinations of buildings, from the architecture of ancient Rome to the Baroque. These examinations follow a narrow path between morphological research and the discovery of artistic insights. The direct confrontation on site with the spatial and sculptural presence of the buildings and the way in which they are unlocked by ornament explores areas of design that extend far beyond the specific historical aspects of the theme, so acquiring a general relevance.

Gronegger’s concern is to liberate us from the established prejudices of a modernism that has grown self-satisfied and that has come increasingly to propagate a style free of ornamentation, and which can no longer look beyond its own temporal horizons.

In a large number of sketches, film-like sequences of photographs and sculptural experiments found pieces are combined with studies and notes on his search for traces in both Rome and Florence to compose a series of questions directed at modern architecture.

Questions:
in what way is the body an image –
and the building a body,
and in what way is the building an image –
and the body a building?

The exhibition indicates a new series of premises for contemporary architecture by means of an analysis of the past. Gronegger’s own designs argue for an organic formal understanding of proportion which can be derived from simultaneously working on the human body, on ornament and on the volume itself.

wednesdays 16
December 13, 2000, 7:00 p.m.
Architekturzentrum Wien

Gronegger’s Workshop: Ornament and Building Today
wednesdays 16 is devoted to the exhibition ‘Gronegger’s Workshop – Body, Image and Building’. Following a lecture by Thomas Gronegger on the exhibition, the contemporary relationship between ornamentation and architecture is to be discussed: Is ornament in the post-industrial information society obsolete or have the forms of ornamentation simply changed?

guests:
Gabriele Kaiser, architectural critic
Bettina Götz, ARTEC, architect
Friedrich Kurrent, architect
Manfred Wolff-Plottegg, architect
Paul Katzberger, architect
Thomas Gronegger, artist

host:
Dietmar Steiner

On The Exhibition

This exhibition offers insights into works from Gronegger’s workshop – his plaster cast workshop for experimental research into profiles, his studies of building elements, his rehearsal stage for miniature urban scenarios, his archaeological studio of forms in Michelangelo’s staircase in the Laurenziana in Florence and his open-air ateliers for drawing and photography spread throughout Rome.

In his workshop Gronegger conducts unorthodox examinations of buildings from different periods ranging from ancient Rome to the Baroque. These examinations follow a narrow path between morphological research and the discovery of artistic insights. The direct confrontation on site with the spatial and sculptural presence of the buildings and the way in which they are unlocked by ornament explores areas of design that extend far beyond the specific historical aspects of the theme and so acquire a general relevance.

In a large number of sketches, film-like sequences of photographs, using instructive posters, sculptural experiments, reconstructions and casts, pieces found are combined with studies and notes on his search for traces in both Rome and Florence to compose a series of questions* directed at modernism, i.e. at a kind of modernism which dispenses with buildings that are both the bearers of an image and the image themselves, and a kind of modernism which is increasingly moving further away from a relationship to the human body and its intellectual and sensual world.

Gronegger’s concern is not to produce solutions but to initially liberate us from the established prejudices of a modernism that has grown self-satisfied and can no longer look beyond its own temporal horizons, which does not recognise that the chance for a true step forward does not lie in entirely excluding where we come from but in processing the intellectual artistic and technological area of tension lying between urgent contemporary demands and distant fruitful developments of earlier times and cultures. The issue is to create a starting point that can be further developed.

* in what way is the body an image –
and the building a body,
and in what way is the building an image –
and the body a building?

BUILDING – IMAGE The physical form of the building develops in the course of an interplay between the Vitruvian trinity Firmitas (construction and material), Utilitas (function and typology) and Venustas (beauty and grace). Venustas, which includes among others the arts of ornament and image as well as both proportion and symmetry is an independent element of equally significance standing alongside Firmitas and Utilitas. This is to say that form is by no means merely a product resulting from the combination of construction and function as suggested by Dankmar Adler’s statement “form follows function” which is so often misunderstood and indeed became a motto of modernism.

The building organism of the Vitruvian trinity does not only bear the image within itself it is iteslf the image, i.e. the image of our intellectual, physical and sensual worlds and its development must remain linked to these worlds. In this context “image” means extracting to insert into a reality different to the immediate constructional and functional reality. The technical mastery of form should not be confused with the intellectual development of form and the design of real or possible images. In order to approach this culture of building and imagery more closely we must cultivate the artistic and scientific study of physical and natural design forms, of a geometry based on ornament and of models parallel to technical innovation and to a means of dealing with the new design media.

BODY – IMAGE The human body lies at the centre of the theory of proportion and symmetry and hence at the centre of the development of intellect and faith. The external appearance of the body and its internal construction are the subject of artistic scientific study and an intrinsic part of the creative basis for a development of the image of man.

The theory of proportion is based on the human form and transfers derived relationships of scale or the discovery of formal organic similarities to the art of architecture. Vitruvius’ Ten Books on Architecture are the only complete work of architectural theory handed down from classical Rome. In his definition of proportion, which he most probably adopted from ancient Greece, there is a dual understanding of the term proportion: proportion as the relationship between abstract numbers and proportion as an analogy to the human body derived from an organic understanding of form.

“Under the term proportion we understand the aesthetically harmonious formation, commodulatio, of the individual parts of the building work and of its overall appearance, a relationship from which the essential concept of artistically harmonious dimensions, Symmetria, results.” (Vitruvius)

The notion of proportion based on absolute numbers was derived from the external appearance of the human body, the organisation of its limbs, its dimensions and proportions. Vitruvius takes as his starting point an ideal body which he defines in terms of abstract dimensions only, without taking into account the sculptural shaping of the forms.

Le Corbusier distanced himself even further from the true appearance of the body and uses it as an approximate scale in order to develop a numeric system of mathematical relationships. In contrast, Dürer starts from a comparative study of the human body. He dispenses with an ideal canon of beauty and designs a number of archetypes of proportion harmoniously adapting their dimensions to suit the character of the particular form.

The organic formal understanding of proportion is derived from the artistic experience of form and the build-up of the body, its transitions and the complete working of form, as well as the fact that the body is seen from all sides and is understood not as a result of successive steps but as a result of a way of thinking that makes simultaneous jumps between the entire form seen in the round and the individual elements. The internal construction of the body with its movable supporting frame wrapped in skin that is held together and moved by muscles, sinews and ligaments is closely related to an organic understanding of the building as a physical entity that is unlocked by Decorum.

That organic formal understanding of proportion which recognised the principle of similarity hardly receives a mention in most tracts. But it was illustrated in built form by such major architects as Brunnelleschi, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Maderno, Bernini, Cortona, Borromini etc. They all have in common the fact that they worked in several disciplines, i.e. dealt with the image of man, ornament and the building as a body.

On Morphology

FOUR TERMS THAT ALLOW THE INTERPLAY OF BUILDING AND IMAGE: ORDER AND WALL, DECORUM AND DECORATIO

The term ORDER is applied to the entire design process and derives from the principle of the load of the entablature and the load-bearing columns and the intrinsically associated ornamental and sculptural design (Decorum) of this system.

The columns rise upwards, placing themselves in a movement or defining it. The vertical system of columns and the horizontal system of beams determine the proportions and the rhythm of the extended movement. Where it stands free from the wall, due to the severity intrinsic to its system, the order allows only a measured kind of movement. The essential elements of the design process of the order include:

The formation of archetypes as regards proportion and form. Determining the way in which rhythm and proportion are linked in designing the column, the dimensions of the beams and width of the intercolumniation. The formal organic similarities between the various elements and their relation to the building element as a whole.

THE WALL is a flexible counterpart to the order and cannot be restricted to a the idea of a ’wall order’, which could be defined as an archetype. The term wall in this context never means merely the contemporary idea of wall panels arranged next to one another but means rather the entire design process which springs from its extraordinarily flexible systems – the light wall made of stretched skins sewn together, treated felt or woven screens or the weighty wall made of stone courses, stamped mud, cast stone (in context of the Roman studies primarily the masonry wall).

The term wall here means the angular, round, curved, stepped, vaulted or layered boundary shell or separating element which reveals opened, ordered or extended spaces, contains spaces that transmute directly into a vault or which can link spaces of different shapes or scales with each other. The design processes of the wall include:

– Revealing or concealing its sculptural element.
– Extending its surface as a passive image-bearer
– The rhythmical movement of its sculptural substance as a participating background for an image.
– The ornamentation, proportioning and establishing of a rhythm in the wall, derived from the art of space or of the surface.

DECORUM is used to mean ornament, generally sculptural but also engraved, drawn or painted, which shapes the play between pier and load within the system and enters into an essential relationship with the building. In contrast to Decoratio, Decorum seems to emerge from the internal framework of the building; it forms and ornaments seams and joints where load and support meet or end and it ornaments the mediating, transitional points lending them a particular expression and suggesting that the issue is not solely putting together the building.

Its association with the play of forces referred to above means that Decorum develops its own classical language particularly in the area of the orders. By its nature Decorum is close to order but also develops its particular language in the wall.

DECORATIO is used to describe the ornament or image that comes from the art of the surface (skins sewn together, wickerwork, carpets etc.) and, free from heaviness or load, is able to develop its own laws of design. However not only surfaces but also sculptural elements can be coated with the art of Decoratio (vases, bowls, bones etc.). It is its origins in the art of the surface that first suggests the relationship between Decoratio and the wall which exposes its substance as passive background for painting and decoration with stucco or mosaic. Decoratio, while essentially closer to the wall than to the order, cannot be exclusively ascribed to it.

On illustrating the morphology

CITY PANORAMA

THE OVERVIEW …is a bird’s eye view of a city in which the most varied of building types are developed from the diametrical building principles, wall (blue) and order (red). The sketches of the buildings, based on buildings in either Florence or Rome* or simply invented ones, line street axes, are grouped around squares or form districts in which morphological contexts, transformations and transitions can be traced.

IN A SIMPLIFIED FORM

The building principle is viewed in a simplified form, whereby the design of bases, capital, cornice or entablature (Decorum) as well as the articulation of building surfaces, ornamental decoration of the walls or wall cladding, etc. (Decoratio) and imagery are ignored. As a result historical buildings, drawn without Decorum or Decoratio border on modern buildings which use no ornament or artistic images. In the city panorama the impact of this essential difference is reduced.

AND TOUR

WEST-EAST AXIS
We can trace an axis running west to east through the city starting at the free-standing columns. The two upright wall elements at the end of the axis form the diametrical contrast to these columns. Between these two poles the metamorphosis of building principles can be traced in a series of steps:

The free-standing columns become a colonnade by the addition of an entablature.
Where the entablature is replaced by arches the colonnade becomes a columnar arcade.
Where the columns are replaced by piers a pier arcade is created.
Where the piers develop into walls we have a wall arcade.
This is followed by a wall opened by a single arch.
Without the arch this is simply an upright wall.

CENTRE-SOUTH AXIS
If we now look at the wall that stands close to the centre of the city and is opened by a single arch we note an axis running through it that is continued southwards through a series of elements opened by arches.
In front of the wall with the single arch there stands a second arch moved through space, given a parapet and thus transformed into a triumphal arch (Arch of Titus). To the sides of this element on the east there is a town gate and on the west an aqueduct. The defence towers of the city gateway are transformed into the pylons of the triumphal arch and the water course of the aqueduct becomes the parapet. City gate and aqueduct are combined to create the triumphal arch standing between them.

The Arch of Septimius Severus, which stands to the south in front of the arch of Titus, has a main arch that is flanked by smaller side arches that are spatially connected by even smaller transverse vaults. This series of openings completes at each step a hierarchical reduction in scale.

This system forms the basic spatial module for larger building elements, such as the side aisle of the basilica of Maxentius, which again forms the model for the side aisles to the nave in S. Pietro in Vaticano. The shells of the barrel vaults have been extracted from both the Arch of Severus and the side aisle of the Maxentius basilica in order to allow the spatial processes involved to be more easily followed.

So along the centre-south axis we can trace a continuous development from the simple wall opening to the unlocking of complex basilica-type buildings.

EASTERN DISTRICT
In the eastern district the wall is bent to create a U-shape. Placed horizontally this U forms an apse, vertically it is a barrel vault. If the apse is extended by walls it forms a hall, which in the nave can be covered with a barrel vault and in the apse by a conch or half dome. Halls placed together create the aisles of a basilica, barrel vaults on walls placed beside each other illustrate the cross section of such a basilica. Towards the south the apses are placed together in a cross or star-shaped pattern to form a centralised building. Through the combination with polygonal floor plans a complex spatial system is established such as the building next to the domed Pantheon, which is reminiscent of Borromini’s S. Ivo della Sapienza.

NORTH-EASTERN PERIPHERY OF THE CITY
On the north-eastern perimeter a district is formed in which wall panels placed together at right angles form cubes reminiscent of the De Stijl movement. Behind this is a high-rise building made of stacked floor panels in which the supporting wall panels or piers are shifted inwards so that all that is required on the exterior is a protective skin. Unlike the wall elements it is not support and screen at the same time but replaces the sculptural wall elements with a screen of physically almost neutral glass panels.

ON THE CITY’S WESTERN PERIMETER stand Bernini’s curved colonnade arms (drastically simplified in the drawing), an example of the few purely columnar structures. The Greek Peripteros, the classical columnar building per se, is a mixed system in contrast, its columns surround an internal cella lined by walls.

NORTHERN PERIPHERY OF THE CITY
On the northern edge we note further mixed motif buildings arranged along the edge running north-west to north in which the wall elements and order enter into a variety of relationships with each other. We note among others the sculptural building principle of the colonnades from Michelangelo’s Palazzo dei Conservatori in which gateway elements composed of wall piers and beam slabs alternate with baldachins. To the east follow the walls of a cella defined only by pilasters. The pilasters are a sculptural projection, i.e. the image of the order on the wall which extends its body to form a projection screen.

NORTH
To the extreme north stands the Ricetto of the Biblioteca Laurenziana by Michelangelo, only the lowest and middle levels are depicted. The lowest level can be interpreted as a ring with positively and negatively shifted wall elements. These anticipate the change in the building principle of the middle level, in which wall piers and double columns of equal significance are placed beside each other.

Along the NORTHERN PERIPHERY OF THE CITY developments predominate in which the wall emerges as an element and attempts to achieve a new balance with the order. Only the cella framed by pilasters demonstrates a hierarchical subordination of the wall in which the appearance of the building element is defined by a sculpturally projected memory of the order of columns.

WEST
In the west Bernini’s curved colonnade arms and a simple wall ring stand opposite each other. Together with the nearby Arena, which curves the principle of stacked arcades as found in the aqueduct into a circular or oval form, they create a triangle defined by colonnade ring arcade ring and wall ring. At the centre of these round buildings that employ a pure building principle there is a mixed motif building combining wall and columns that is reminiscent of Bramante’s Tempietto. Here columns are arranged around an internal ring of cella walls.

IN A SOUTH-EASTERLY DIRECTION the circular wall-column buildings are continued: first comes a building similar to S. Costanza which represents a complete reversal of the earlier schemes: an external wall ring surrounds an inner circle of columnar arcades resting on pairs of columns. Further on, in a south-east direction stands the simplified S. Stefano Rotondo, at its core a circle of columns carries an arcade ring.

The external wall forms a third stepped wall ring connected to the middle ring by radiating walls.

SOUTH
As the final example of these circular buildings and also the end to our tour we visit the Pantheon, which stands at the very south. Alternating curved and angled niches are carved out of the ring made by its wall mass. In each of the niches two columns carry the continuous ring of the entablature above. Above the entablature the wall curves to form a mighty dome with a circular opening at its zenith.

* The sketches which borrow from historic buildings are drastically simplified for didactic purposes and may depart from the originals in terms of the number of bays, columns etc.

A Brief Chronology of Abstinence*

Dankmar Adler’s statement that form follows function, which Sullivan published in an essay in 1896 and which subsequently became a slogan for the modern movement, was taken out of context. Originally the complete sentence went as follows: “It is the law of all organic and inorganic, all physical and metaphysical, human and supernatural things, all true manifestations of mind, heart and soul that the expression of life is always discernible, that form always follows function”. The decisive phrase “…the expression of life is always discernible” is omitted by the modernists.

In his journalistic piece Ornament und Verbrechen (1908) Loos placed ornament in a state of disrepute from which it has never been able to re-emerge. His polemic was directed against the unrestricted growth of semi-industrial ornament so common in the historicist period. In fact many of Loos’ own works reveal a restrained use of classical architectural elements and a sensitive application of ornament. In his architecture he never employed his proclaimed approach in as purist a manner as his dogmatic, simplistic contemporaries and cofounders of the International Style.

FROM INDIVIDUAL ARTISTIC DESIGN TO THE DESIGN OF THE INDUSTRIAL FORMAL TYPE, FROM ORNAMENT TO ABSTRACTION, FROM THE BUILDING AS A PHYSICAL ELEMENT TO AN ABSTRACT PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF SPACE

At the annual congress of the Deutscher Werkbund in 1914 a debate began which was to re-emerge in the Bauhaus. Henry van de Velde, who pleaded for craftsmanship and the personal creative role of the artist, entered into conflict with Muthesius who made the case for industry and the role of the designer in the development of standardised production. Muthesius line of argument emerged victorious.

The development of the Bauhaus, the individual phases of which can only be described in outline here, is itself a chronology of abstinence In the founding manifesto dating from April 1919 Gropius postulated as the aim of the Bauhaus to:
“…create together the new building of the future that will contain everything, architecture, sculpture and painting, in its form…” He developed a basic educational system under which the students worked in workshops led in each case by both a master craftsman and an artist (among the latter were Itten, Klee, Kandinsky, Schlemmer).

However this phase was soon to be replaced by a change in direction towards “the design of the industrial product”. This change, accelerated by lectures given by Van Doesburg (1922), was emphasised by the appointment of Moholy-Nagy in 1923 and in a memorandum by Gropius, Art and Technology, A new Unity (1924). “This is the change towards a pure functionalism which should make the Bauhaus the centre of an entire renewal of architectural style…” (W. Haftmann). This concept of constructional purism naturally led to the elimination of the expressive artistic elements. As early as 1923 Itten and Schreyer left the Bauhaus. When Gropius resigned as director in 1928 he proposed Hannes Meyer as his successor. This Swiss architect was a “fervent disciple of the purest dialectic materialism which completely rejected any form of artistic activity” (W. Haftmann).

The International Style was followed by the sculptural style introduced by Le Corbusier in his pilgrimage church at Ronchamps (1950-1954). In the way buildings are shaped this sculptural style revived certain tendencies characteristic of both Jugendstil and Art Nouveau but dispensed entirely with ornament. So-called Brutalism (béton brut, art brut), which “emphasised the technology of our time” (Mies van der Rohe) in its deliberate use of exposed concrete and services and which aimed at an uncompromising revelation of both material and construction by its very nature also rejected ornament.

High-tech is a variation and a logical development of this approach which attempts to develop its architectural language from the aesthetic possibilities offered by industrial technology. The assembly or addition of apparently functional or technical elements often found in high-tech may have a certain ornamental effect but the fact that the need for decoration and ornament is allowed to evoke residual memories of the art of ornament only under the guise of an aesthetic of technology and materials is indeed depressing.

Postmodernism was introduced by architects who offered the first indications of change not only with their buildings but in a series of writings. Venturi’s Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, written in 1962 and published in 1966, was the first signal. This fundamental postmodern text was described by Vincent Scully as “probably the most important writing on the making of architecture since Le Corbusier’s Vers une Architecture of 1923”, but the level of architectural theory is often overestimated and it attempts to impress with a bombardment of historic material (Kruft). Venturi did not succeed in establishing a serious system of references for a revaluation of traditional design phenomena (nor indeed did he intend to do so) but merely opened an end-of-season sale for the random or ironic use of historical forms and ornament. One notes from the architectural use of quotations in postmodernism that in many cases the authors have not read the original sources. Venturi’s response to Mies van der Rohe’s “less is more” with the simplistic phrase “less is a bore” is not the starting point for a serious renewal but a sound bite designed with the media in mind.

Deconstructivism attempts to destabilise and break up the inner logic of structure in contrast to high-tech architecture, which aims to achieve an optimal pure structure. Deconstructivism, by now the dominant design approach in almost all schools of architecture, seeks to an extent to give birth to an autonomous architecture without taking into account that art can be freely opposed and indeed abandoned.

Postscript: Of course, the concern of this brief chronology is not to make an assessment of those qualities which can without doubt be found in each style. The fact remains that following an initial pluralism (Wagner, Behrens, Loos, Taut etc.) modernism relentlessly developed into a style without ornament and that, after World War Two, the culture of image and ornament remains a natural element only in the work of a few exceptions such as Scarpa, Plenik, Bogdanovic, Kurrent among others.

* In the context of Loos’ Ornament und Verbrechen certain polemical simplifications in this brief chronology should be excused.

Biography

Thomas Gronegger
 
1965
born in Munich, Germany

1988-92
studied communication design at the “Fachhochschule für Gestaltung” in Augsburg.

1992-96
interdisciplinary studies in Fine Art and Architecture at the College of Applied Arts in Vienna, specialising in the sculpture and architecture under Wander Bertoni, Richard Deacon and Wilhelm Holzbauer (research trip to Florence September 1994 to May 1995).

1995-97
work on the publication Das Ricetto der Biblioteca Laurenziana which appeared in March 1997, published by Böhlau Verlag.

1997
submitted doctoral thesis to the College of Fine Arts, Hamburg

1998
awarded the title “Doktor der Ingenieurswissenschaften”

1998
Essay ³Roma Decorum² published in the Austrian periodical Architektur Aktuell

1998
Essay under the title ³Lórganismo architettonico di S. Pietro: línseparabile concessione tra decorum e struttura², published in the italian periodical Palladio .

1999-2000
lecturship at the University of Applied Arts Vienna in the sculpture department under Gerda Fassel on the theme Körper, Bild und Bau. (Body, Image and Building). Building).

Presently works as a self-employed artist and writer. Undergoing the formal procedure for qualifying as a lecturer at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna in the field of Imagery and Architecture. BR>

Links

http://www.borromini.at/
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/m/michelan/5archite/late/index.html
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/m/michelan/5archite/early/index.html
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/dic/colls/arh102/fourteen/