Architecture
and Engineering
Architects of the day drew upon a number of stylistic revivals – including
the Gothic, the Italian Renaissance and Byzantine-Romanesque – rather
than developing a modern style for the modern age. This might partly be
explained by the Victorians growing, first-hand exposure to a variety of
examples of historic architecture through the expansion of the Empire and
the increase in world travel. Such styles were also in keeping with the
Victorians’ interest in ancient civilisations and medievalism.
However, the revivalism was not necessarily a reaction against
industrialisation. Materials and building technology had all advanced with
the mass production of iron, steel and glass and the new manufacturing techniques,
and these were readily employed. A building might be faced in stone or brick,
for example, but the structure relied upon steel girders, and the production
and transportation of the materials used in the traditional façades
would also have been made easier by the innovations.
During this period, there was not the degree of specialism that is now apparent
in the different fields of engineering and between engineering and architecture.
There was an interconnection between the aesthetic and the technological,
and a collegial spirit among different practitioners. L.T.C. Rolt argued
that none of the eminent engineers who followed Brunel could ever hope to
match his versatility because they lacked his breadth of intellect and imagination,
which were typical of his age. He wrote:
In Brunel’s day engineering, a word
which embraced both the civil and the mechanical, that distinction having
only just emerged, was still the twin sister of art…
Referring to the revivalist detailing in Brunel’s structures, Rolt
wrote:
It is perfectly true that Brunel used past
architectural styles with great freedom and in great variety. On the Great
Western between London and Bristol alone there are to be found Moorish,
the Egyptian, the Italianate, the Classic, the Tudor and the Gothic, but
the spirit in which he used them was at the opposite pole from the escapist,
antiquarian romanticism of the later 19th century. For Brunel the past was
not something to sigh nostalgically about. It was something to admire and
to learn from, yes, but he never doubted his capacity to improve upon it
and if he failed in his adaptations of old styles to new purposes it was
not through timidity but through over confidence in his own powers.
|
|