{"id":565,"date":"2009-06-05T10:55:29","date_gmt":"2009-06-05T15:55:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/?page_id=565"},"modified":"2009-06-05T10:55:29","modified_gmt":"2009-06-05T15:55:29","slug":"brunelleschi-our-contemporary","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/brunelleschi-our-contemporary\/","title":{"rendered":"Brunelleschi: Our Contemporary"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"brunelleschi\"<\/a>
\n
\nBrunelleschi, the man trained as a simple jeweler who went on to gracefully solve the greatest engineering problem of his time, produced a body of work whose true nature continues to elude many scholars. The simplistic and erroneous conventional wisdom refers to Brunelleschi as the father of the Renaissance in architecture. Yet while he lived and worked in this uncertain epoch at the cusp of the Renaissance, his individual mastery of architectural principles has made him difficult to fit into any easily definable categories. Brunelleschi\u2019s depth of spatial construction and denial of symmetrical readings clearly show that he is anything but a classicist, having more in common with 20th century ideas of space. By studying Brunelleshi\u2019s built work in relation to noted twentieth century masters, Mies Van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright and Santiago Calatrava, we can gain not only a greater understanding of Brunelleschi\u2019s own work and place in history, but also a renewed appreciation for the Gothic spatial and structural principles that have shown a reemergence in the last century.
\n
\n\tWith the Renaissance, spatial depth in painting thrived, while architecture lost this sense of space and fell into stagnant, classically planar compositional constructs. Painters had understood the idea of perspective since Vitruvius first defined skenographia, describing the construction of orthogonal lines that converge on one central point. This is a fairly simple construction. But with Brunelleschi\u2019s first perspective demonstration in 1413, he added a sense of spatial modularity that would prove essential to his architecture.
\n
\n\tBrunelleschi first began by constructing the view of the Baptistery as seen from the Florence Cathedral doorway onto a panel half a braccia square. Using a scale drawing of the plan and side elevation of the Baptistery, Brunelleschi established a set of internal proportional points of both drawings that he used to construct an accurate perspective drawing on his square. This also begins to suggest that he is thinking of the building spatially, taking into consideration both plan and section. Brunelleschi then drilled a small hole in the back of his square. (fig. 1) He then invited people to view this new metaoptical reality he had constructed by standing in the Cathedral doorway, while they looked through the lintel sized hole in the square, on the back of which was painted his view of the Baptistery. They then moved a mirror in front of their vision which reflected back to them the back of the square board, which showed Brunelleschi\u2019s painting. By moving the mirror up and down, they could switch between actual and constructed view. They were amazed at the level of accuracy Brunelleschi achieved. (fig. 2)
\n
\n\tBrunelleschi was able to convincingly show that using an internal proportional planometric system, could be viewed in perspective and maintain a 1:1 ration, even though individual lines appeared to be receding into space. His solution to the creation of perspectival space presupposed the regularized pattern of a grid. (fig. 3) These ideas of spatial constructs based on a modular, repeating geometric unit would have wide reaching implications for Brunelleschi\u2019s architecture. When Alberti published his treatise, On Painting in 1435, the Italian version was dedicated to Brunelleschi.
\n
\n\tBrunelleschi\u2019s experiments in perspective modularity become all the more pertinent when viewed in light of his Ospedale degli Innocenti, completed in 1419. Here, Brunelleschi uses a simple proportional plan and elevation module. The distance from column to column is the same as the distance from each column to the wall. This distance is also used as a measurement from the ground plane of the loggia to a point just above the impost blocks. The spatial depth is accentuated by lines on the ground projecting from each column to a point perpendicular to the wall. (fig. 4) Thus in Brunelleschi\u2019s work the floor grid is not simply a gridded tile-like system used by 15th century painters to create the illusion of depth, but rather Brunelleschi is working with space \u2013 the repetition of a cube. Ideas of standardization are further emphasized through his use of a standard Corinthian column. Though these capitals are borrowed from roman models, Brunelleschi reduced the distracting projections and removed all fluted elements.
\n
\n\tThe Ospedale degli Innocenti displays important themes that become prevalent through the course of Brunelleschi\u2019s work. For example, as was seen with his perspective experiments, the same distance line, receding in space can maintain a 1:1 ratio. Brunelleschi uses this concept in the Ospedale to visually measure the space. He is methodically repeating the same module element \u2013 a cube and sphere \u2013 to create measurable spatial constructs. These pure geometrical volumes of space, with their stripped down rationalism, explicitly show that Brunelleschi is interested in space, not decoration.
\n
\n\tBetween 1422 and 1428, Brunelleschi completed the Old Sacristy at San Lorenzo. The location of the sacristy adjoining the transept follows the pattern of Santa Croce and other 14th century Florentine churches, but it was an entirely new concept in its execution. The building is thought out in an overall, geometrical order. The rational, geometric rules of the building dictate every element of the building from structure to ornamentation. The fundamental modules of the building are the pure geometric forms of the square and cube. The main space is a cube surmounted by a hemispherical dome. The dome is ringed by windows at its base and segmented into twelve equal ribs. The altar chapel is formed by a similarly proportioned cube and sphere.
\n
\n\tThe main space of the Sacristy is articulated in three zones. The lower zone is defined by pilasters and trabeation, the intermediate zone is articulated by arches along the perimeter walls, and the upper zone consists of the dome. (fig. 5) Pilasters and columns sink into the walls of the space in order to adhere to the grid and make the specific spatial impact intended by Brunelleschi. (fig. 6)
\n
\n\tIn the Old Sacristy, Brunelleschi introduced what would be one of his most important \u2013 and influential – material considerations, one that would greatly emphasize his key spatial concepts of space and structure. The geometric patterns of the structure are articulated in a gray stone, known as pietra serna, which is placed in contrast to the light stucco walls. (fig. 7) By emphasizing the structural patterns, Brunelleschi clearly expresses his ideas of a repetitive, standard structure. Every vault is identical, resting on standard Corinthian columns, under a repeating ceiling grid. Pragmatically this was the ideal solution, because it was tied to the process of quarrying stone and the economy of producing multiples of the same dimensions. The concept of standardization is prominent, much like mass production of materials would become a common mantra with modern 20th century architects.
\n
\n\tWhile the Old Sacristy is a compelling example of Brunelleschi\u2019s structural intentions, it also begins to hint at Brunelleschi\u2019s spatial models. A spatial model that was different than anything that had been built up to that time in Italy. By placing a large marble table in the center of the space, Brunelleschi deliberately denied any axial, symmetrical reading of the space. (fig. 8) The interior is perceived in the diagonal, producing a dynamic and fluid unfolding experience as you move around the table within the cube. This is related to the Gothic designs of space and structure, but Brunelleschi elevates this to a new level of articulation. The entirety of the space conforms to geometric ideals, no single element operates independently over the overriding expression. Every step in design was based on a geometric modular system of progression. These leads to the elimination of irrelevant decorative flourishes in favor of simplicity, unity and clarity.
\n
\n\tSan Lorenzo also displays similar spatial concepts as the Old Sacristy, as well as the use of the pietra serna and light stucco walls. The structure has been reduced to a clear expression of force. The linear structural elements confirm the sense of an actual perspective, modular sense of depth. As these essential structural members gain prominence the white infill stucco walls begin to recede. These walls begin to take on the characteristics of planar surfaces that begin to experientially dematerialize as the prominent structural elements that define the space become clear. This becomes clear when viewing the side chapels. The gird on the floor coupled with the physical recession of the spaces give a sense of the modular sense of space, while the openings above come forward, reinforcing the idea of space. (fig. 9) Through the use of structure and surface materials, Brunelleschi is suggesting the possibilities of an endlessly extending grid of space, much like was seen in painting and his perspective studies.
\n
\n\tCarlo Argan convincingly demonstrates the complex spatial constructs Brunelleschi used in regards to the light, dematerialization of the white stucco walls through the use of linear perspective. Using the Pazzi Chapel as his model, Argan photographs the view looking toward the chapel and then out back toward the loggia. The walls literally begin to dematerialize as Brunelleschi uses infill glazing. The distant shadowed cloister seen across the courtyard begins to come forward in relation to the dark structural members, while the glazing and white walls begin to merge with the sun dappled courtyard. The same effect is seen when looking toward the chapel. The smaller, distant dark-bordered window begins to come forward and have a relationship with the structural elements, while the white walls experientially disappear. (fig. 10)
\n
\n\tCritics consider Santo Spirito, begun in 1436, as the embodiment of Brunelleschi\u2019s structural and spatial concepts. Santo Spirito is a completely unified space. Every part is differentiated along its functional requirements and yet subservient to the overriding geometrical and proportional rules. The design is resolved by the standard repetition of equal parts that relate to the overall proportioning system. For example, the width of Santo Spirito\u2019s nave is exactly double that of the side naves. The writer Giovanni Fanelli demonstrates Brunelleschi\u2019s use of a measurement system based on the Italian braccia, roughly 550-655 millimeters. The side aisle measures 11 braccia and this sets up the overriding modular unit size. An arithmetic series of proportion is based on the relations between building dimensions and the unit of 5 \u00bd braccia. For instance, the chapel depth is 5 \u00bd braccia, the distance between the minor order columns is 11 braccia, the height of the springing of the vaults on the naves is 16 \u00bd braccia, 22 braccia gives the distance between major order columns, and 27 \u00bd braccia describes the probable height of the central nave vaulting. Ornamental elements \u2013 moldings, capitals, cornices, etc. \u2013 are also based on a similar proportion of braccia. These unifying dimensions based on a single module make Santo Spirito a prime compositional example of planning based on simple relationships. Leonardo Benevolo states that this use of proportional systems that permit transitions from one scale to another help to give continuity to the entire composition.
\n
\n\tAs in the old sacristy, all architectural elements of Santo Spirito are placed according to Brunelleschi\u2019s overriding concept of geometric order. Columns extend only partially into the space as they are sunken into the walls. Also, window openings create sculptural intersections when they turn intersect and bend off of each other when two planes form a corner edge. (fig. 11) The structure is repetitive and suggests an infinitely repeating order which could extend beyond the white plaster walls and continue out to the landscape beyond. (fig. 12) The repetitive structure also pulls the visitor through the space creating a dynamic experience as one strives to reach the ending point. This shows the influence of perspective drawing and the creation of landscapes of infinite length, passing through the white walls. (fig. 13) In contrast to former buildings, the repetitive structure also serves a way to measure space, for instance, if you were to enter S. Lorenzo or Santa Spirito, it is immediately clear that you could measure the internal space, because they are so governed by a readily grasped law. This was different from earlier buildings where the architect led the eye along a carefully delineated path. With Brunelleschi, the building did not take over the observer, but rather the observer was able to rationally understand the building.
\n
\n\tBrunelleschi again broke precedent with his initial proposal for Santo Spirito. Instead of the traditional three entrances to a cathedral, symbolizing the Holy Trinity that sets up a symmetrical perception upon entering the central nave, Brunelleschi proposed four entrances to Santo Spirito. This subjugated the exterior openings to the internal geometric logic of the plan, with created chapels like garlands ringing the space. But most importantly, the four doors created a situation where a classical reading of the space was impossible. Instead the concept of diagonally experienced space was emphasized, projecting the inhabitant into the interior. (fig. 14) Brunelleschi denies the symmetrical reading, similar to the Old Sacristy. Brunelleschi also initially proposed rotating Santo Spirito off a traditional east\/west axis to create a generous urban plaza that would also have a relationship extending to the Arno River.
\n
\n\tAs Howard Saalman somewhat enigmatically states, Mies Van der Rohe comes closest to epitomizing Brunelleschi\u2019s spatial and structural logics. It is interesting to note that it took nearly 500 years for modern architecture to continue with the explorations Brunelleschi ingeniously begun. Ideas of structural rationality based on standardization of modularity are prevalent throughout Mies\u2019 work, but it is this combined with refined spatial considerations that provide valid comparisons to Brunelleschi. With Mies, Brunelleschi\u2019s clear articulation of structure versus the light infill walls leads to its natural conclusion \u2013 complete transparency. Brunelleschi hinted at this possibility with the Pazzi Chapel\u2019s extensive use of glazing. Brunelleschi, who was limited by technical considerations, used the careful placement of windows and the use of perspective illusion to hint at the dematerialization of the stucco walls, Mies\u2019 non-structural elements literally disappear with the introduction of glass walls. The difference between structural and non-structural elements is made explicit.
\n
\nBrunelleschi always stripped his interiors to their purest essence; all unnecessary decoration was to be removed. The distracting nature of decorative elements, which obeyed their own rules independent of geometry, could do nothing but delude the all encompassing concepts in his work. With the Farnsworth House, Mies sought the reduction of all elements to their purest essence. Structural members are articulated as white vertical elements and the building envelope is rendered in walls of glass. A fabric curtain spans the interior perimeter of the building to provide an additional level of both privacy and also to provide an added contrast with the structure and the light, billowy fabric. Also, the lines of structure on the floor further reinforce the physical presence of spatial volumes. (fig. 15)
\nAs the enclosure walls dematerialize into completely transparent planes, the explicit connection to the landscape becomes apparent. As with Brunelleschi, spatially, a Mies building does not stop at the wall, but has an implied sense of extension approaching infinity. (fig. 16) This can be seen in the side chapels of Santo Spirito projection out into space in a building that begins to address at a larger level the Arno River, or in Mies\u2019 case, cubic volumes of space that jut outward into the landscape. Also, as with Brunelleschi, the rationally constructed nature of the building provides the viewer with the immediate knowledge of how the building\u2019s forces are resolved while maintaining a sense of lightness. The modular, repetition of the same column at equal distances also projects the viewer into the space.
\n
\nThis sense of infinite space can not be conceived of through plan or elevation drawings. This method leads to classically flat, symmetrical spaces. Rather, through the use of perspective drawings that Brunelleschi used to such great effect, can the dynamic spatial idea be conceived. Mies also initially began with a sketch, always envisioning the building from a diagonal perspective, perceiving the building as a physical object existing in three dimensional space that changes and unfolds as it rotates with the movement of the user. This is evident in his sketch for a house in the Alps from 1934. (fig. 17) While seemingly straightforward, the sketch displays an acute awareness of the building within its natural surroundings and a highly refined use of transparency and solidness to articulate this difference. There is also an apparent use of straightforward geometric modularity based on structural methodology.
\n
\nIn Mies\u2019 drawing for a House with Three Courts from 1934, the ideas of space and structure are further refined. The structure is not concealed by any ceiling veneer, but rather expressed in the same manner of the vertical supports. There is no decoration, but rather a stripped down aesthetic based on the means of construction, with simple modular steel connections. One is reminded of Brunelleschi\u2019s repeated use of the standard Corinthian column from each of his projects. The diagonal presentation of the space also serves to draw the viewer into the scene. The distinction between inside and outside is blurred, as the grid extends past the transparent infill wall out into the landscape beyond. The floor grid is also recognizable as the same tile pattern used by early Renaissance painters to visually measure space in perspective as it begins to recede toward the horizon. The overall conception of the space in geometric means, from the repeating grid of the floor pattern that references the structural steel grid adds a spatial richness to the project. (fig. 18)
\n
\nA characteristic of Brunelleschi\u2019s work is the subjugation of individual elements to adhere to the overall geometric logic of the space. This leads to sunken columns that turn and bend with the corners of white stucco walls. In Mies\u2019 Crown Hall, he uses a similar visual method to deemphasize the structure in favor of spatial considerations. The corner detail of Crown Hall psychologically negates the corner as a terminating point and alludes to the walls as planes that are intersecting through infinite space. The structural grid stops short of the corner due to the geometric grid that dictates where the columns should be placed. Like Brunelleschi, Mies is favoring geometric and spatial considerations, the resultant effect leads to elements that recede as they are subjugated by the architect\u2019s spatial theories. (fig. 19)
\nWith the Brick Villa project in 1924, Mies explicitly begins to explore the idea of infinity as the walls of the villa project out into the landscape. (fig. 20) The project deconstructs the idea of what a villa is \u2013 the continuing wall planes link the inside and outside and serve to define space that is more flexible and organically flowing. While the space is geometrically rigid, there is still the sense of organic space. Each room flows into the next, and the viewer is denied any symmetrical reading as the occupant diagonally approaches the building and moves through the building in an unfolding, processional nature. Structure and non-structural elements are clearly defined with non load bearing glass walls used throughout. Even using plan drawings, Mies was able to create a spatial construct, the pinwheel plan suggests the movement that the viewer feels when experiencing the building. The building is cognizant of its environment and seeks to embrace it, similar to Brunelleschi\u2019s initially proposed layout for Santo Spirito. Simple geometrical forms, clarity and linearity are all prominent elements in Mies\u2019 work as well as Brunelleschi\u2019s.
\n
\nSanto Spirito is ringed by identical projecting chapels. In the Gericke House by Mies, he experimented with a similar notion of volumes of repeating space that can be multiplied to infinity. The Gericke House is conceived of as cubic partitions of space that have the possibility to take on modular, almost prefabricated options. Like a grid pattern on a perspective drawing, there is no limit to how far they can go. (fig. 21) Because of the clear articulation of structural elements juxtaposed with the dematerialization of the infill walls, and a clean structural rationality based on pure geometry, Mies is continuing in the tradition of Brunelleschi.
\n
\nWhen discussing the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, the author Bruno Zevi defines Wright\u2019s spatial concept as characterizing organic architecture. The building is functional not only in program and utility, but also in terms of human psychology. Zevi also defines organic architecture as being as much qualitative as quantitative, with the human scale being the fundamental law in organic architecture. Like Brunelleschi\u2019s work, organic space is rich with movement, directional invitations and illusions of perspective. Spatially, Wright can be compared to Brunelleschi. Nowhere are these ideas better epitomized in Wright\u2019s work than in Falling Water. (fig. 22)
\n
\nLocated over a creek in Mill Run, Pennsylvania, Falling Water displays a highly refined connection to the building\u2019s site. Similar to Brunelleschi\u2019s perspectivally planned spaces, the horizontal cantilevered structural forms extend the spaces of the building out into the landscape giving a sense of the infinite. (fig. 23) The spaces are conceived of having a dynamic relationship to the viewer and to each other. For example, the approach path up the hill through the landscape provides an ideal opportunity for the viewer to understand how the building sits and connects with the site. The winding trail places the approach diagonally to the building, and as you proceed along the curving processional line, the building begins to rotate as a three dimensional object occupying space while revealing itself and drawing you toward it. (fig. 24) The connection with the landscape is accentuated with non structural elements of planar glass, which through their detailing; provide a strong psychological blurring of the boundary between inside and out. (fig. 25)
\n
\nCertain aspects of organic space are evident with the qualitative use of materials. A strong connection is made with the understanding that the central stone hearth is the same type of stone that is simultaneously being seen outside the building. This provides a spatial connection between the two objects and serves to flatten and reduce the perceived distance between them. The building is clearly defined by overriding conceptual approaches. Each and every element of the building relates to the whole. According to the author Thomas Heinz, Wright\u2019s training methods taught him to begin the design process by establishing spatial relationships that operate through an inference from the general to the particular, and from the whole to the part. Classical architecture is generated based on exterior relationships with a certain disregard for the internal programmatic functions. Symmetrical readings are desired with no consideration of whether or not this is the most desirable layout for interior spaces. Wright on the other hand, develops forms from the inside out, not forcing the functions of the building into one general form for the sake of being viewed only from the outside. Wright began from the heart of the building and worked outwards.
\n
\nThe Unity Temple in Oak Park, Illinois, has an overriding geometrical system. A modular grid is used as the repetition of a single form that dictates the formal and economic control. Like Brunelleschi, Wright believed in the use of pure geometric forms, in the case of the Unity Temple he used the square and cube, which is visible in the plan. The spaces of the building are then dimensioned accordingly, from the openings in the roof down to the artificial lighting fixtures. (fig. 26)
\n
\nWright pushed the concept of modularity to its natural extreme with his experiments in cement block building such as the Ennis-Wright House from 1923. (fig. 27) The entire space is arranged around the use of a repeating single element of concrete block. Wright\u2019s method of drafting on a grid ensured that the design decisions would follow from the method of construction. Again the juxtaposition of structure and non-structure is highlighted by simplifying the material palette to structural gray block and transparent infill walls. As Zevi mentioned the importance of the human scale in organic architecture, Wright shows this through the widespread use of concrete blocks. They are both something that brings the scale down to an element that an individual could hold and provide a means to visually measure the space. Wright\u2019s buildings have a certain sense of decorative elements, yet he uses them to emphasize the space and they serve to unify all the elements of the space.
\n
\nBrunelleschi\u2019s buildings always have a sense of circular movement. From being thrown into the space and rotated around the transept and central chapel. The Guggenheim Museum in New York is an exterior conception of Wright\u2019s dramatic interior space. Brunelleschi was also always an architect of interior space. In Wright\u2019s Guggenheim, the organic form grows out, giving the space a strong presence. The spiral form and circular movement suggest infinity, as there is no definite terminus as suggested by the large oculus at the center of the space. (fig. 28) The spiraling form of the Guggenheim also evokes the ramp that winds between Brunelleschi\u2019s two domes. In the Guggenheim, form, movement, and experience all functionally act as the parts to make the whole. Also, Wright was always pushing the envelope with what was structurally possible. Brunelleschi, the architect of ingenio, who could solve the greatest engineering feat of his day, and Wright, who used concrete forms and cantilevers in new ways which had never been seen before.
\n
\nSantiago Calatrava blurs the boundaries between art, engineering and architecture. His formal investigations are closely tied to natural forms, such as skeletons, that display a purely rational, expressive structure. While growing up, Calatrava often found refuge in sketching and studying natural organisms. Though he is trained as an engineer, he does not try to subjugate the role of architecture in his buildings. Though all his buildings display an engineer\u2019s sensibility of stripping down the space to its most necessary elements. The complete lack of tacked on decoration also serves to give primacy to the structural systems. The artistic flourishes in his buildings relate to the way in which he expresses the forces of the building in certain psychologically and spiritually uplifting ways.
\n
\nBCE Place Gallery and Heritage Square, in Toronto draws many of its forms from nature, particularly evocative is the idea of trees spreading their canopies. (figs. 29, 30) Brunelleschi\u2019s architecture implied a skeleton and skin system, but with Calatrava, this becomes the driving concept of the work. Structural elements are dealt with in a clear, linear manner. The elements are also visually complex, but based on a modular repeating system. Brunelleschi used modern systems of prefabrication \u2013 labeling individual members as they came from the quarry like a factory \u2013 and Calatrava also takes advantage of the possibilities in modern steel manufacturing to create a repetitive, visually rich composition. By repeating the same elements, Calatrava also suggests the perspective experiments of Brunelleschi. As the space recedes into the distance, the viewer can still understand that the visually smaller parts in the distance are in fact the same size as the larger, closer elements.
\n
\nThe light structure also encourages movement through the use of dynamic, undulating forms. Though the spatial richness found in Brunelleschi\u2019s work is somewhat lacking in Calatrava\u2019s project. With Calatrava, the viewer is given a symmetrical reading of the space and there is little to stop the eye from shooting through the space, negating any sense of spatial complexity. The undulation in the roof forms also seem to speak more to Baroque forms than Gothic conceptions.
\n
\nWith Calatrava\u2019s project for the Cathedral St. John of the Divine in New York, he attempts to reintroduce the Gothic into modern architecture. (figs. 31, 32) The light, vertical structural members are given primacy while the infill walls literally disappear. The connection with the landscape becomes clear. Here again Calatrava also uses a repetition of structure to provide a sense of rhythm and movement to draw the visitor through the building. Calatrava\u2019s work displays Gothic principles of structural clarity, light, vertical elements and an airy, almost ephemeral, space.
\n
\nBrunelleschi\u2019s central, most basic architectural concepts, structure and space, were largely ignored for 500 years, until a new spatial richness in architecture occurred. In this way, Brunelleschi is not the father of Renaissance architecture, but rather modern architecture, truly making him our contemporary. Howard Saalman in his monograph on Brunelleschi talks about the universal element of his work being integrity of design, integrity of structure and integrity of detail. He says \u201cBrunelleschi\u2019s buildings don\u2019t shout for attention: they command it silently through flawless execution and understated monumentality. They do not lend themselves to facile appreciation, but demand careful study and rigorous thought to be fully understood and enjoyed.\u201d Brunelleschi was an architect who strove for universal and timeless themes of clarity, simplicity, and perfection, and this makes him more relevant to us today than ever before.
\n
\nBibliography<\/small>
\n<\/p>\n

1. Zevi, Bruno Architecture as Space; How To Look At Architecture. New York,
\n1957.
\n2. Zevi, Bruno. The Modern Language of Architecture. Seattle, 1977.
\n3. Saalman, Howard. Filippo Brunelleschi: the Buildings. London, 1993.
\n4. Manetti, Antonio. The Life of Brunelleschi. University Park, 1970.
\n5. Hyman, Isabelle. Brunelleschi in Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, 1974.
\n6. Argan, Giulio Carlo. Brunelleschi. Milan, 1955.
\n7. Zevi, Bruno. Frank Lloyd Wright. Basel, 1998.
\n8. McCarter, Robert. Frank Lloyd Wright. Phaidon Press, 1997.
\n9. Heinz, Thomas. Frank Lloyd Wright. New York, 1972.
\n10. Tzonis, Alexander. Santiago Calatrava: The Poetics of Movement. New York, 1999.
\n11. Schulze, Franz. Mies van der Rohe: Interior Spaces. Chicago, 1982.
\n12. Blaser, Werner. Mies van der Rohe: IIT Campus. Basel, 2002.
\n13. Fanelli, Giovanni. Brunelleschi. Firenze, 1977.
\n14. Summers, David. Real Spaces. Phaidon Press, 2003.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Brunelleschi, the man trained as a simple jeweler who went on to gracefully solve the greatest engineering problem of his time, produced a body of work whose true nature continues to elude many scholars. The simplistic and erroneous conventional wisdom refers to Brunelleschi as the father of the Renaissance in architecture. Yet while he lived […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-565","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/565","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=565"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/565\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":567,"href":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/565\/revisions\/567"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/gracefulspoon.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}