From Doxiadis' Theory to Pikionis' Work

Reflections of Antiquity in Modern Architecture

Kostas Tsiambaos

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317205081
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

In this book, Tsiambaos redefines the ground-breaking theory of Greek architect and town planner Constantinos A. Doxiadis ( The Form of Space in Ancient Greece ) and moves his thesis away from antiquity and ancient architecture, instead arguing that it can only be understood as a theory founded in modernity.

In light of this, the author explores Doxiadis' theory in relation to the work of the controversial Greek architect Dimitris Pikionis. This parallel investigation of the philosophical content of Doxiadis' theory and the design principles of Pikionis' work establishes a new frame of reference and creates a valuable and original interpretation of their work. Using innovative cross-disciplinary tools and methods which expand the historical boundaries of interwar modernism, the book restructures the ground of an alternative modernity that looks towards the future through a mirror that reflects the ancient past.

From Doxiadis' Theory to Pikionis' Work: Reflections of Antiquity in Modern Architecture is fascinating reading for all scholars and students with an interest in modernism and antiquity, the history and theory of architecture, the history of ideas and aesthetics or town planning theory and design.

1 Structures of vision

The field of vision is comparable, for me, to the terrain of an archaeological dig.¹

Paul Virilio

An airplane in the sky of Greece, above the Parthenon, brings forth a new harmony yet to be captured.²

Giorgos Theotokas

On 15 May 1936, Constantinos A. Doxiadis submitted his PhD dissertation entitled “Die Raumgestaltung im griechischen Städtebau” to the Berlin Charlottenburg Technische Hochschule. The topic of Doxiadis’ dissertation was the organization of space in Greek urbanism (griechischen Städtebau).³ By the phrase ‘Greek urbanism’, Doxiadis implies ancient Greek urbanism⁴ and specifically certain significant building complexes, such as the temple-sanctuary complexes and agorae.⁵ According to Constantinos Doxiadis, the placement of buildings and the organization of building complexes in ancient Greece (temples, sanctuaries, agorae, etc.) were not random but followed certain strict synthetic rules based on the function of visual perception. Architects in antiquity defined the exact location of buildings in space using a polar coordinate system based on geometric angle relationships which peaked at eye level, the sides of which, when projected, met at specific points such as the sides and boundaries of temples, altar edges, the axes of statues, and so on. The bedrock of the architectural design was the human gaze and its visual field coincided with that of the built site.

In each case, there was a main point from where the entire architectural ensemble could be seen, and this was the entrance to the complex (Figure 1.1). The propylon emphasized the entrance to a complex as the point from where one has an overall view of the space for the first time (Figure 1.2). In other words, the propylon and the entrance were analogous to the iris and pupil.

Figure 1.1 The plan of the Athenian Acropolis and its optical symmetry according to Doxiadis’ theory. Point A indicates the entrance

Source: Constantinos A. Doxiadis Archives. © Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Foundation.

Figure 1.2 The optical geometry in Pergamon according to Doxiadis’ theory

Source: Constantinos A. Doxiadis Archives. © Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Foundation.

Figure 1.3 Perspective of ancient Olympia indicating the exact setting of buildings and structures in the visual field

Source: Constantinos A. Doxiadis Archives. © Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Foundation.

According to Doxiadis, the basic principles for arranging structures in space were the following:

• Radii from the vantage point determined the position of three corners of each building so that three quarters of each building could be seen.⁶

• Every major construction could always be seen in its entirety in the visual field, never just one part. Wherever this was not possible, a building would be completely hidden by another (Figure 1.3).

• The radii intersecting the points of the structures determined specific angles between them, in each case depending on whether the architect had used: a) the twelve-part system or b) the ten-part system. In case a, there are angles of 30°, 60°, 90°, 120° and 150° resulting from the division of the circular (panoramic) visual field into 12 parts (twelve-part system). In case b, there are angles of 36°, 72°, 108° and 144° resulting from the division of the visual field into 10 parts (ten-part system).

• The position of structures was also determined by the distance between the vantage point and the object.

• These distances were calculated from the vantage viewpoint in arcs of 100, 150 or 200 Greek feet or following other simple proportions determined on the site.⁷

• In the sacred complexes, one of the angles was directed not towards a temple or other structure but towards a natural element of the surrounding landscape.

• This specific direction was associated with a local religious cult or tradition determining a “sacred way”.

• The buildings were arranged in such a way that the gaps between them allowed the natural environment to be seen, thus creating a visual composition which included both natural and artificial elements in a unified composition.

According to the author, this spatial composition system, founded on the human gaze, preceded the Hippodamian system.⁸ However, Doxiadis points out that there had been a diachronic evolution of this system from the first philosophical approaches in the seventh century BC and its flourishing in the fifth century BC to its gradual disappearance during the Hellenistic era, when design with vertical and horizontal axes fully prevailed (Figure 1.4). All the building complexes that Doxiadis studied follow this synthetic system, with the exception of the Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods in Priene where angles of 45° and 90° were used, perhaps because, according to the author, “this was a foreign, not a purely Greek, cult”[sic].⁹

Doxiadis’ dissertation is divided into three chapters. The first chapter (Aufgabe) presents the purpose of the dissertation and analyses the methodology; the second chapter (Die untersuchten Städte und Orte) presents the study areas; and the third chapter (Das system der raumgestaltung) presents the theory through its application to famous urban complexes of antiquity.

The study areas are also divided into three categories depending on the spatial organization system used each time (ten-part system or twelve-part system). Consequently, there are complexes designed on the basis of both design systems,¹⁰ complexes that use only the twelve-part system¹¹ and complexes that use only the ten-part system.¹² Each chapter contains explanatory texts, ground plans (featuring radii, angles, arcs and axes), perspective drawings, views and photographs from the study areas.

Initially, Doxiadis notes that the method of analysis he used is original and, for this reason, may be characterized as a hypothesis, i.e. a personal interpretive view, rather than a documented theory. Besides, as he writes, only eight of the study areas can be deemed to have remained intact or restored with sufficient accuracy: the Acropolis III in Athens, the Asklepieion on Kos Island, the Market Gate of Miletus and the Sanctuary of Aphaia in Aegina, the Temple of Athena in Pergamon, the Temple of Zeus in Priene, the Temple of Demeter in Selinunte and the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion. As the author himself notes, the number of cities he studied “represent a very small proportion of the known sites, and certainly they do not suffice to demonstrate an irrefutable argument concerning the Greek system of planning”.¹³

Figure 1.4 A comparative template of some of the sites analysed by Doxiadis in his Raumordnung

And furthermore:

In short, the hypothesis presented here is based upon a careful study of the few complete examples just mentioned and upon less thorough examination of a number of others. Imperfect evidence, I admit, makes it difficult to establish proof … I believe that I have traced the main outlines of a system of design.¹⁴

Doxiadis therefore acknowledges that his is not a study...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• Foreword – uncovering the ineffable
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Structures of vision
• 2 Ancient Greek optics and modern visual aesthetics
• 3 Seeing is knowing
• 4 Ancient communities
• 5 Built images – dream settings
• Conclusion – open horizons
• Bibliography
• Index