267

The Joumal
of Architecture
Volume 15
Number 3

Mannerism and meaning in

Complexity and Contradiction

in Architecture

Maarten Oelbeke

Department of Architecture & Urban Planning,

Ghent University, Belgium; Department of Art
History, Leiden University, the Netherlands

Introduction
'This is not an easy book', opens Vincent Scully's
introduction to Robert Venturi's Complexity and
Contradiction in Architecture (1966).' Nonetheless,
the object, as weil as the aim, of Complexity and
Contradiction seems straightforward enough: a
theory of design providing an alternative to 'orthodox modernism'.2 Venturi is also quite explicit
about his method and his preferences. Still, Scully

only to Venturi's conception of formal complexity,

but also of architecture's cultural meaning6
Recalling his stay at the American Academy in
Rome as a Rome Prize winner in the years 195455, Venturi said in an interview: '[Dluring my last
months in Rome, I realized that Mannerist architecture was what really meant most to me, and I reexamined a lot of Italian historical architecture for

is right. Complexity and Contradiction amasses a

body of historical exempla that becomes more
impressive with each perusal of the book, and
classesit with virtuosic flair under an array of headings (such as 'Contradiction Juxtaposed') that seem
at once self-explanatory and oracular. Many authors
and artists are referenced, each time adding a new
layer to the already dense exposition. A5 Scully
observes, '[the] whole [of Complexity and Contradiction] is ... hard to see, hard to write about
.... ,3 This essay is an attempt to read and interpret
Complexity and Contradiction and, to a limited
extent, Learning from Las Vegas, by examining the
rale of mannerism and baroque in the formation
of Venturi's design theory4 Scholarship has frequently drawn attention to the centra I position of
mannerist and baroque architecture in Robert Venturi's work, and Venturi himself has expressed and
examined his own interest in mannerism throughout
his careers This reading of Complexity and Contradiction will argue th at the notion of mannerism,
and its juxtaposition with baroque, is crucial not

2010 The Journalof

Architecture

its Mannerist qualities. This was important when I

came to write Complexity and Contradiction in the
following years.'7 Mannerism operates both as a
period term and the appellation of qualities that sixteenth-century architecture shares with buildings
from other periods. In fact, Complexity and Contradiction declares the author's 'particularity for certain
eras: Mannerist, Baroque, and Rococo especially.'8
The book discussesthe work of BaldassarePeruzzi,
Michelangelo, Palladio, Vignola and (just once)
Giacomo della Porta. Venturi pays little attent ion
to the architects of the early seventeenth
century-a point th at is not without significancebut he gives Gianlorenzo Bernini and FrancescoBorromini equal consideration, and the work of Pietro
da Cortona figures as weil. Testament to the acuity
of Venturi's Roman observatioRs is the extensive
range of late seventeenth- and early eighteenthcentury Roman architecture, a production th at
today still exists in the shadow of the so-called
high baroque9 If Roman and Italian examples are
prominent, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
architecture from France, England and Bavaria is
1360-2365

OOI: 10.1080/13602365.2010.486562

268
Mannerism and meaning in

Complexity and Contradiction in

Architecture
Maarten Oelbeke

also represented;

the neo-baroque

architecture

of

Brasini appears twice.lO

Armando

In the preface to Complexity and Contradiction

Venturi

explains the grounds

It is determined
attracted'

for this predilection.

by wh at he, 'a5 an artist',

t~, namely complexity

As an 'architect
to understand

'relying

new sensibilities

that he is interested

in 'talk[ing]

not around it' and 'accepting

limitations'

to 'concentrate

lars within

it rather

about

This declaration

it'"

ambitions.
tecture:

that

Venturi

than

are wholly

about architecture,

appealing

specifically

and

ambitions

and rococo

intersect

and ambiguous,

particularity

ings both
It triggers

the

architecture.

Venturi's

architecture
tural

Venturi's

knowledge

Richard Krautheimer,

a gene rous mentor

the

first-hand

defines two

to the fellows

and directed

baroque.'3

Venturi's

to engage

with

who

is examined

and
on

in his own
contradiction.
mannerist,

styles, which

in

that Venturi

of the American

whom

Venturi

correcting,

with

of th is part of architec-

readily

available.

Nikolaus

Pevsner's Outline of European Architecture (1943)

and Siegfried

Space, Time and Architec-

Giedion's

ture. (1941) provided

general,

views of the period.

Rudolf

but selective,
Wittkower's

over-

Art and

1956 and Henry Millon's Baroque and Rococo

Architecture in 1965, af ter Venturi's Roman stay at

baroque

by

or a

of these build-

defined

by

para-

combining,

testing.'12

first

Architecture in Italy (1600-1750) was published in

contextualisation

activity

was

Venturi

the American

Academy;

still,

images

from

these

books were used in Complexity and Contradiction.

Paolo
Roman

Portoghesi's

image-driven

baroque-Roma

1966, the same

Contradiction.'6
in

exploration

of his pub

mediaeval,

When Kra
(from the

if anythinq

corpus. Jar

'5

immensely

VII (1985)

interventiol
order to un

tecture and

propagatior

papacy. Kr
about 'atte
things',

to

what Camp

The instn
resonate w

Contradictie

volume thai

at the Am

of

essay to a

barocca-would
appear
as Complexity and

(1955), whi

year

in Venice hE

historian Gi

It remains to be seen, however, whether

mer contributed

more to Venturi's

cal architecture

than

to the corpus

baroque al
New Vork

'urban his

These

are not only

by Venturi in the opening

than

in the

Richard ~

architectur

KrautheimE

towards

work,

but also characterised

kind of critical

history

knowledge

acted as

of Complexity and

edition

undoubtedly

more thorough
tural

of

attention

Krautheimer,

in the second

'4

in historica I

in Rome was assisted by the architec-

historian

Academy

interest

provided

easier abstractions

of intent

The immanence

expunging,

also shaped

however, external

edition),

the

graph of his book: 'the labor of sifting,

constructing,

factors

into his

A5 Complexity

himself.

an omission

invites analysis and defies generalisation.

TS. Eliot and quoted

and, ultimately,

Contradiction (repairing

and a resistance to the kind of abstrac-

approach.

architec-

insight

particu-

tion that would occur through

stylistic

own work

historical

him with

on the difficult

employs

architecture

about

and

and self-

thanks

architecture

complexity

Venturiwrites

ture because it provides

baroque

clear-cut

inherent

and not their style, period or even historiSecond,

contained:

mannerist,

architecture's

is to say, he wants

cal contexts.

complex

the

proceeds to stress

order to discover the design principles

two

of feeding

First, Venturi wants to write about archithat

buildings

finds

less on

characteristics

of specific buildings ... in the expectation

of the present.'

of

is seemingly

and Contradiction acknowledges,

rather than a scholar', Venturi seeks

historical architecture

more amply

is 'easily

and contradiction.

the idea of style than on the inherent

product

This appreciation
rococo architecture

by providing

of Roman

baroque.

Krauthei-

notion of histori-

art was fO

rhetoric, or

expert access

feature of al

By the 19505,

ter of a techl

269
The Journal

of Architecture
Volume 15
Number 3

Richard Krautheimer was already an eminent

architectural historian. While he taught a course in
baroque architecture at the Institute of Fine Arts at
New Vork University in the 19505,17 the main body
of his publications up to th at moment concerned
mediaeval, Byzantine and classicaI architecture.
When Krautheimer did publish on the baroque
(from the late 19705 onward), his work had little,
if anything, to do with Venturi's view of the same
corpus. James Ackerman has rightly characterised
Krautheimer's work on the seventeenth century as
'urban history'. 18 For instance, Krautheimer's
immensely influential Rome in the age of Alexander
VII (1985) is a multi-faceted study of the different
interventions undertaken by Pope Alexander VII in
order to understand his instrumentalisation of architecture and urban planning in the construction and
propagation of a specific image of the Roman
papacy. Krautheimer's architectural history is all
about 'attempting to relate architecture to other
things', to paraphrase Venturi's description of
what Complexity and Contradiction is not about.19
The instrumentality of baroque art in terms that
resonate with the endeavour of Complexity and
Contradiction was examined in an important
volume th at appeared at the time of Venturi's stay
at the American Academy. In the introductory
essay to a volume entitled Retorica e barocco
(1955), which collected papers from a conference
in Venice held 15th_18th June, 1954, the Italian art
historian Giulio Cario Argan argued that baroque
art was founded in rhetoric20 Argan proposed
rhetoric, or rather rhetoricality, as the central
feature of all baroque: the arts assumed the character of a technique, a method, a type of persuasion21

In other words, if in Argan's view baroque is rhetorical, the real centre of baroque art does not lie in religion or Catholicism, but in its instrumentality. This
instrumentality is not confined to any particular
medium: its finality, Argan argues, resides in mediating the new-and equally complex-social structures of the seventeenth century.
Venturi does not refer to Argan in Complexityand
Contradiction, nor are there indications that he
knew of Argan's essay22 Nonetheless, the idea
that formal complexity in architecture helps to
mediate the complexity of society is key to both
Complexity and Contradiction and-profoundly
modified-Learning from Las Vegas, a point I will
return to below. It should be noted th at Argan's
essayindicates that baroque studies in art and architectural history were less preoccupied with understanding whether, or how, architecture and the
arts operated in subservience to politica I or religious
agendas, than with defining the artistic principles
that were active and important within that
context: according to Argan, these principles were
essentially literary. Still, context mattered, for
Argan ascribed the emergence of an ostentatious
technicality and rhetorica I vigour in expression to
specific historical circumstances. His baroque is a
function of the seventeenth century, and closely
tied to the religious and political context of the
moment.
This is not how Venturi wants to think about
formal complexity. When he writes that 'the
function of ornament is rhetoricai', th is is not-a5
in Argan-because the ornament is an appropriate
technique within a socially determined economy
of communication, but because it exceeds the

270
Mannerism and meaning in

Complexity and Contradiction in

Architecture
Maarten Oelbeke

minimum: it is an 'architectural fanfare.'23 This

fanfare is expressive-it communicates and incites
interpretation, but there is no reference to
a precise or contextually-determined message.
Complexity and Contradiction contains few, if any,
hints at the direct instrumentality of baroque (or
other) architecture to politics and religion. At the
same time, however, Complexity and Contradiction
is explicitly and permanently preoccupied with
'meaning,24 In fact, Venturi recalls how his interest
in historical, and especially baroque, architecture
was at first inspired by Siegried Giedion's Space,
Time and Architecture, and concerned 'space,.25
Then 'meaning' entered the frame, and apparently
with it Venturi's interest shifted from baroque to
mannerism. His notion of 'meaning' is therefore
non-baroque, 50 to speak, as little imbued with
the religious and politica I aspects important to architectural historiography as with Giedion's notion of
architectural space.
Mannerism and meaning
In the interview mentioned earlier, Venturi recalls
the impact of reading Rudolf Wittkower's Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism of 1949.
Vet he points out th at it was not the part on proportions, but the section concerning 'Palladio as a
Mannerist', th at truly interested him26 Proportion
is the central issue of Wittkower's book, and architecture is presented as applied geometry. Wittkower
pays relatively little attention to ornament and decoration, to privilege the volumetry of Palladio's
buildings and their syntax: the composition of the
pure, geometrical architectural elements into a
mathematically arranged wholen 'Palladio as a

Mannerist' appears in the third part of the book,

which deals with the architect's design principles.
These, too, are understood mainly in terms of geometry, but if '[In the previous sections] Palladio's
buildings have been considered as variations on a
geometric theme, different realisations, as it we re,
of the Platonic idea of the Villa', Wittkower writes,
' ... it would be wrong to conclude th at there was
no development. This section will therefore be
largely concerned with the variabie factors in his
architecture .. :28
If Palladio's geometry is constant, both the
arrangement of the ground plans (the disposition
of the programme within the geometrical scheme)
and ornament vary over time, in wh at Wittkower
terms a 'changing approach to the architecture of
the ancients:29 A crucial moment, according to
Wittkower, is Palladio's visit to Rome in 1554 (incidentally 400 years before Venturi's stay at the American Academy): 'This visit must have opened his eyes
to the meaning of contemporary architecture. Not
only his planning but also the style of his faade
went through a metamorphosis after his return:30
Classicalprecedent, Wittkower shows, provided palladio with the licence to use 'superimposition', 'contradiction', the 'unfinished appearance', in sum
'Mannerist factors as conflict and complication' or
'typical Mannerist inversionsd1 The same liberty
prevailed when Palladio was confronted with the
design problem of the church faade, an architectural element without classicaI precedent.
These pages of Architectural Principles prefigure
Complexity and Contradiction, both in their definition of mannerism as an ambiguous and complicated play with design codes and ornament, and

271
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 15
Number 3

the association of architectural meaning with th at

play. But Wittkower had already established
the characteristics of mannerist architecture as
opposed to renaissanceand baroque in two essays
on Michelangelo of the early 19305. The latter of
these essays,on the Biblioteca Laurenziana, explicitly criticises Heinrich Wlfflin, who did not recognise a distinct mannerist architecture. Wittkower
proposes the notions 'double function' and 'inversion' as characteristic of a mannerist style32 According to Architectural Principles, similar design
features are found in Palladio. Now they operate
within the framework of harmonic proportions
and pure volumetry. Alina Payne has identified this
framework with the architectural ideals of high
modernism, and argues that Wittkower's Architectural Principles was instrumental in defining a
supra-historical architectural ideal of pure forms
grounded in applied geometry and a rigid, formal
syntax.
Nowhere does Venturi identify the 'geometrieal'
Palladio with modernism, but his blend of geometry
and mannerist ornament provided Complexity and
Contradiction with an historically sound lever for criticising dogmatic, simple modernism in favour of a
complex and unstable architecture, able to variegate
architectural expression within the envelope of volumetry, geometry and proportionality, 'messy vitality
over obvious unityd3 Indeed, if proportion is

inside', 'exemplifies crowded intricacies within a

rigid framed4 The engineering of a bridge 'vividly
expresses the play of exaggeratedly pure order
against circumstantial inconsistencies', in the way
that Palladio's ground plans adapt to adjust to
street patterns, '[givingl a vitality to the buildings
not apparent in their ideal counterparts illustrated
in the Quattro Librid5
A5 these examples suggest, twentieth-century
geometry and standardisation assume the rale of
proportion and the orders in classicist design
theory. This becomes particularly clear in the
chapter on 'the conventional element', which
carries just two illustrations the mannerist faade
of Vignola's Palazzo Tarugi and the bridge mentioned above. Convention is a form of order, exemplified by classiCIStornament. lts absence is the
fundamental problem of modernist architecture.
Venturi bemoans the limited capacity of contemporary architects to turn not only standardisation, but
also the objects from everyday life, into a system
of conventions open to subsequent manipulation:
'Present-day architects, in their visionary compulsion
to invent new techniques, have neglected their obligation to be experts in conventions' and therefore
'have exploited the conventional element only in
limited waysd6

absent from Complexity and Contradiction, geometry and modular systems-mainstays of modernism-are
not. Le Corbusier's definition
of
architecture from Vers une Architecture as the play

The notion of convention establishes an explicit

analogy between language and architecture.
Quoting Eliot and Cleanth Brooks, Venturi compares
architects with poets who 'employ "that perpetual
slight alteration of language"a7 This step from
architecture to poetry suggests that, if Wittkower's

of 'great primary forms' is dismissed early on, but

the Villa Savoie, 'simple outside yet complex

analysis of Palladio stimulated Venturi to seek

architectural meaning in the play with convention,

272
Mannerism and meaning in
Complexity

and Contradiction

in

Architecture
Maarten

Oelbeke

his critica I framework draws upon other sources as

weil. In fact, when Complexity and Contradiction
introduces 'the double-functioning
element', it
does not refer to the 'double function' characteristic of mannerism in Wittkower's essay on Miche-

The double-functioning element can be a detail.

Mannerist and Baroque buildings abound in
drip mouldings which become sills, windows
which become niches, quoin strips which are
also pilasters, and architraves which make

langelo, but to the 'double functioning of

members' described in Four Stages in Renaissance
Style (1955)
by the literary historian Wylie

arches40
As Sypher acknowledges, his notion of mannerism is
indebted to Wittkower's article on Michelangelo's

Sypher38 A closer look at the relationship

between Complexity and Contradiction and Four
Stages in Renaissance Style will further elucidate

Laurenziana41 This transfer situates Complexity

and Contradiction within the continuous exchange
between art history and literary criticism. A5 the

how mannerism, and the distinction between mannerism and baroque, operates in Venturi's design
theory and defines how and why architecture

example of Argan already showed, this exchange

was especially vigorous when it came to the
definition of mannerism and baroque. In fact, it
helped to shape the theoretical interest in sixteenth-

signifies.
Literary mannerism
Wylie Sypher introduces the concept of 'double
functioning of members' when he refers to mannerist architecture and especially faades:
In mannerist faades there isa frank display of illogicality in the frequent double functioning of
members, particularly where there appears a
kind of architectural pun, a single member
having a duplex use-a molding, for example,
used as a sill. There is also a "principle of inver-

and seventeenth-century literature42 Also, by

adopting Sypher rather than Wittkower, whether
intentional or not, Venturi transfers a critical apparatus concerning a referential, mimetic art to the
realm of architecture. The very possibility of th is
transfer was advocated by Sypher, and contributed
to Venturi's view of the relationship between form
and meaning.
Four Stages in Renaissance Style attempts to
define the formal principles of literature by constructing analogies with the visual arts and architec-

sion" in mannerist faades, for the customary

relation of orders is reversed by "permutations"
of elements, conflicting directions, shifts in

ture. Early modern literature played a crucial rale in

th is endeavour43 Sypher sets out to define a perennial cyclical evolution of artistic forms that develops

scale, or other overingenious devices th at are

learned but irresponsible. Often the closed units
are not really bounded but placed in doubtful
adjustment to the open units39
Venturi's treatment of the same notion echoes

in four stages:
One might, indeed, say that styles in renaissance
painting,
sculpture, and architecture
run

Sypher's:

through a full cycle of change in which we can

identify at least four stages: a provisional formulation, a disintegration, a reintegration and a

273
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 15
Number 3

final academic codification-a

cycle roughly
equivalent to a succession of art styles or forms
technically known as "renaissance" (a term,
here, of limited meaning), mannerism, baroque,
and late-baroque44
If Heinrich Wlfflin, according to Sypher, rightly discerned an alternation between renaissance and
baroque phases in the development of the arts,
and especially architecture, this binary scheme
'fails to reckon with an intervening form of vision
now widely known [among Continental art historians] as mannerism.' 45 A contemporary reviewer
of Sypher's book noted that 'the great discovery
for professor Sypher is mannerism .... Art historians
have sedulously investigated mannerism since the
second decade of this century, but this book represents the first attempt to carry their discoveries
and principles over to literatureA6 According to
Sypher
[M]annerism in European literature is a perennial
overgrovvth of ornate, clever, strained, abnormal
phrasing that perverts the canon of classic rhetoric. There is mannerism in antiquity, in the Middle
Ages, and in the seventeenth century. A cycle of
mannerism-baroque-rococo seems to repeat
itself during the renaissance and the nineteenthcentury .. 47
This notion

of mannerism finds

its way

into

Complexity and Contradiction:

The desire for a complex architecture, with its
attendant contradictions, is not only areaction
to the banality or prettiness of current architecture. It is an attitude common in the Mannerist
periods: the sixteenth century in Italy or the
Hellenistic period in Classical art, .. 48

The idea of what may be referred to as 'recurrent

Mannerism' was not new by.the 19505, but in
Sypher's work it served to argue the centra I point
of his book: namely, that there exist formal analogies between works of art in different media of
the same period. These analogies cannot be identified with style, because Sypher argues that forms
are always particular to specific works, an idea
present in Complexity and Contradiction as wel149
In order to discern these forms, the critic should
engage in a close reading of the very fabric of
each artefact. This reading is assisted by a long list
of binary terms or oppositions that Sypher defines
in the final pages of the introduction to Four
Stages in Renaissance Style.50 Mannerism, then,
serves to denote the moment when the immanent
forms of art lapse into the 'ornate, clever, strained,
or abnormal'. A5 such, mannerism is clearly distinct
from baroque:
The controlling laws of baroque are especially significant as a counteraction to the dissonant forces
in mannerist art; for baroque style openly and formally resolves the mannerist tendency in dense
massesof material, redundant statement, kinetic
energy, an elevated centre of gravity, a broadening and consolidating of the foreground plane, a
monumental academic balance, and flashing
color and light. Baroque is indeed an extravagant
style; but it is no mere explosion. There is a "Iaw
for exuberance," 50 to speak, and having fixed
this point of view, the baroque artist adopts a
tactic of first, negation, then strong affirmation,
which gives a special illusion of release into
"distance" and "infinity." It becomes increasingly
clear that there is no necessary opposition

274
Mannerism

and meaning

in

Complexity and Contradiction in

Architecture
Maarten Oelbeke

between baroque and academic art, since both

academism and baroque obey the same laws of
structure.51

tradiction, Venturi recalls how 'lijn literature, too,

critics have been willing to accept complexity and
contradiction in their medium. A5 in architectural

To Sypher, baroque is an art of 'certainties'; contradiction firmly belongs with mannerism. Similarly,

criticism, they refer to a Mannerist era, but unlike

most architectural critics, they also acknowledge a
"mannerist" strain continuing through particular

wh en Venturi finds contradiction in architecture, it

becomes mannerist. The 'British Classicism' of
Wren or Lutyens is relevant because 'the genius of
British Classicism in architecture derives largely
from its deviations from the norm' S2 Roman
baroque, too, is appreciated insofar as it can be
construed as mannerist; this 'mannerist baroque' is
epitomised by the work of Francesco Borrominis3
Conversely, Complexity and Contradiction makes
no room for architects like Carlo Maderno, whose
faade for the Santa Susanna proves to Wittkower,
in his article on the Laurenziana, th at 'the principle
of inversion is foreign' to the baroque, and according to Sypher 'has equilibrium and defines its units
50 clearly that it seems almost academic'S4

poets, and some, indeed, for a long time have

emphasised the qualities of contradiction, paradox
and ambiguity as basic to the medium of poetry,
just as Albers does with painting.'58 Venturi mentions Cleanth Brooks and William Empson as weil. 59
These authors are associated with New Criticism,
the formalist current in literary theory and criticism
th at emerged in the USA from the late 19405
onwards. In his perceptive review of the book's
second edition, Philip J. Finkelpearl noted th at
Complexity and Contradiction
may be viewed as an application of the methods
of the so-called 'New Critics' of literature to architecture. Structured much like William Empson's

Maderno, like Giacomo della Porta, was no part of

mannerist architecture, and th is exclusion was
carried over to Complexity and ContradictionS5

brilliant study of poetry, Seven Typesof Ambiguity

(1930), and with a similar concentration on 'difficult particulars: Venturi views buildings as the

Four Stages in Renaissance Style came out after

Venturi's stay at the American Academy, when he
studied Roman architecture in situ and discovered

'spatial record' of a dynamic struggle among

opposing forces. The resultant formal compIexities he shows through painstaking analysis and

mannerist architecture, but before the bulk of Complexity and Contradiction was written, in 1962 -63,
when a preliminary manuscript was submittedS6

extensive exemplification to be exciting and beautiful60

Indeed, Venturi writes that 'analysis and compari-

Sypher is one of the many literary critics who fed

the analysis of architecture in Complexity and Contradiction. A5 already mentioned, Venturi quotes

son', proposed by Eliot as tools of literary criticism,

'are valid for architecture too,61 Specific notions

TS. Eliot when he describes the operation of criticism in the opening paragraph of his books7 In
the section on 'Ambiguity' in Complexity and Con-

indebted to New Critical theory, such as 'the difficult

whoie': the desirabie intrinsic unity of a formally
complex work.

central

to

Complexity

and

Contradiction

are

275
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume

15

Number

1
But perhaps more fundamentally, New Criticism
formulated the idea that the meaning of a work
resides in its specific, particular form, independent
of externalor
contextual meanings62 And as
Sypher observes, rejecting context as a source of

complexity and contradiction in architecture'concludes with the remark that '[. .. 1 literary critics
especially have pointed out the inherently paradoxical quality of the language of art', which becomes
much developed in the final book in the passage
quoted above66 There, a reference to the painter

meaning establishes a fundamental parentage

between the arts, since they are no longer distinguished by different forms of referentiality63 Expres-

and theorist, Joseph Albers, is inserted as weil, and

the book expands the remark th at 'valid architecture

sive forms are shared by different media and subject

to cyclesof historical transformation, as can be seen
especially in mannerist periods of history, wh en

invokes many levels of meaning' with 'and combinations of forms', attenuating the emphasis on
signification with a reference to design. A5 we

codes and conventions are most thoroughly tested

and strained64 Thus, 'mannerist' notions, such as
inversion and double function, can migrate from
an architectural historical discourse to the general
context of critica I analysis, still retaining the
promise of meaning. Af ter all, meaning is inherent

have seen, however, 'meaning' remains crucial in

the final version of Complexity and Contradiction.
But the idea of recurrent mannerism, introduced in
the book's second chapter and repeated throughout, was not present in the extract of 1965.
Instead, Venturi quoted Edmund W. Sinnott's ideas

to the object, be it a poem or a building, and does

not depend on th at obJect's relationship with an
external world.

on the 'complexity of organic evolution', which

connect evolutionary processes with increasing
formal complexity of organisms67 Between 1964

To gauge the impact of this notion of mannerism

on Complexity and Contradiction, it is useful to
compare the first edition with a pre-publication of

and 1966, mannerism supplanted darwinism.

The impact of recurrent mannerism on the final
version of Complexity and Contradiction becomes

the two introductory chapters (A Gentie Manifesto

and Complexity and Contradiction versusSimplification or Picturesqueness) and the chapter on The

clear in the following passages, still absent in the

publication of 1965. Venturi writes that '[tloday
this attitude [Mannerism] is again relevant to both

Inside and the Outside in the Yale journal Perspecta

in 1965.65 Many of the differences between this
version and the book betray the firm hand of an

the medium of architecture and the program of

architecture.' Indeed, Venturi writes 'though we
no longer argue over the primacy of form over function (which follows which7), we cannot ignore their
interdependence.'68 'Medium' and 'program' then

editor and Venturi's persisent search for material.

They also show that he continued to tinker with
the incorporation of literary criticism and its
approach to notions of medium, meaning and
formal complexity. In 1965, the very first paragraph
of the essay-opening with the programmatic 'Ilike

structure the book. Architecture as a medium-the

expression of the 'increased scope' and 'complexity
of [the] goals' of architecture-is the focus of chapters three to five (Ambiguity; Contradictory Levels:

276
Mannerism and meaning in

Complexity and Contradiction in

Architecture
Maarten

Oelbeke

the Phenomenon of 'Both-And' in Architecture; and

The Double-Functioning Element). The architectural
programme-'the
growing complexities of our
functional programs'-is dealt with in chapters six
to ten (The Conventional Element; Contradiction
Adapted; Contradiction Juxtaposed; The Inside and
the Outside; The Obligation Toward the Difficult
Whole)69
If 'Mannerism' operates bath on the level of
'meaning' and 'program', then the criticaI categories of mannerism (such asjuxtaposition, contradiction but especially convention) apply not only to
the form, but also to the function of architecture.
In ather words, the formal system of mannerism corresponds with the morphology of society and
defines the complexity of its needs. This analogy
allows Venturi to attach his plea for complex and
contradictory design to the cultural context of architecture, without having to posit the kind of instrumental or
referential
relationship between
buildings and their context that characterises, for
instance, the baroque of architectural historians.
Indeed, the book repeatedly and empathically

Mannerist times require mannerist architecture,

and mannerism itself almost becomes a typology,
the nodal point between design and cultural
context. 73
Medium and programme
When Complexity and Contradiction was republished in 1977-with the same text and illustrations
but in a different format and with Michelangelo's
Porta Pia on the cover- Learning from Las Vegas,
written by Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Steven
Izenour, had been published for five years. In his
Introduction to the second edition, Vincent Scully
casts the two books as complementary halves: the
older one 'mainly [exploring] the physical reaction
to form', the second as 'primarily concerned with
the function of sign in human art and ... therefore
... linguistic in its approach', an assessment
echoed in Venturi's own Note to the Second
Edition74
There is an obvious shift in attention, and it entails
mannerism and baroque. This is not, however,
because the focus of Venturi, Scott Brown and

convention, Venturi asks: 'Should we not resist

bemoaning confusion? Should we not look for
meaning in the complexities and contradictions of
our times and acknowledge the limits of our
systems?,71 'Ironic convention' is presented as a

Izenour turns from form to meaning, but because

the notion of meaning and closely related concepts,
such as convention, are redefined: if Learning from
Las Vegas adds a new layer to the ideas voiced in
Complexity and Contradiction, it also substantially
reconfigures the original
groundwork.
This
becomes apparent from the very first pages of
Learning from Las Vegas, which paraphrase the
chapter on convent ion from Complexity and Contradiction, arguing that 'orthodox Modernism ... is dis-

crucial tooi, as it 'recognizes the real condition of

our architecture and its status in our culture,n

satisfied with existing conditions', and is therefore

blind to conventions75 Now, however, these

states that only a sufficiently complex architecture

can face contemporary society: '[the architect] can
exclude important considerations only at the risk
of separating architecture from the experience of
life and the needs of society: 70 In the chapter on

277
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 15
Number

conventions

do not

pertain

to an 'order',

and image:

modernist

architects'

of their medium',

weil as mannerism

to

'analogy,

the 'chapel

Further on, Venturi

bemoans

where

Complexity and Contradiction,

symbol

as in

'[glorying]

but

'propagandistic

architecture'

in the uniqueness

informed Complexity and

Contradiction is made explicit, but exists to vaunt

tecture

the merits of 'iconology,76

book,

analysis and design that

ited with his 'brilliant

of San Carlo
not
of

analysis' of Borromini's

alle Quattro

making

'reference

symbolic

meanings'

Fontane,

to

the

as pure

the historical

form

and

'[appreciatedl

dictions of Mannerist

faade

complex

for

layering
77

contain

building

and its piazza

space' . Modernist

architects

architecture ... for their formal

78

and contradictions:

It is hard not to detect a note of self-criticism

th is statement:
diction

convention,

are now

complexity

grounded

in

and contra-

in referentiality.

A5 a

overwhelms

of the symbol defines the archi-

is unabashedly
under

Vegas',

the

baroque.

heading

the Strip is likened

Scott

Brown

persuasively

up a

through

This

is the historical

to

Rome,

the

foil for Las

and symbolism operate

84
beholder
The analogy

on a mobile
more

inspired

to draw

late-sixteenth

iconography

even

Las

Rome

the painstaking

century83

Rome of the baroque,

Vegas, where

to

of Rome after the great

of the

mid-eighteenth

passage

This analogy

and Izenour

registration

transformations

in the

Rome

to the 'pilgrim's

of Las Vegas, emulating

topographical

becomes

Very early

'From

of the Counter-reformation'.
Venturi,

the

and contra-

symbolism

from

in Sicily',

of Las Vegas as weil, and its historical para-

Nolli-map

had been accused of

the symbolic complexities

complexities

cred-

is chided

its ornaments

A few pages earlier, Giedion

'[abstracting]

although

digm

are different

Martorana

82

The dominance

space. The case for trans-medial

Giedion,

and rococo,

of the Byzantine

explicit

serves as Venturi

when

and

Roma Interrotta , the exhibition

the

same

Rauch's entry

to

of 1978 organised

result, in Learning from LasVegas,the triad manner-

under the aegis of Giulio Carlo Argan, then mayor

ism, baroque and rococo, still a united front in Com-

of Rome, where

plexity and Contradiction, falls apart.

ventions

Mannerism

and rococo become identified

with the self-referen-

tial symbolism

like Mies's I-beams-

which

of modernism,

'represent

tion'-when,
tion

at

naked

steel-frame

all79

Rewriting

a point

funcin

Complexity and Contradiction , where Mies is said

ance th at would
states that
the

an assur-

make Bernini envious',80

neither

'Mies

nor

Venturi

his followers

forms

symbolically

to

convey

architectural

meaning:81

A5 such, modernism,

imagined

inter-

Complexity and Contradiction

and Learning from Las Vegas should then perhaps

introduced

to have 'used the rhetorica I I-beam with

architects

in the city on Nolli's map85

The shift between

construc-

in fact, they have no structural

twelve

used

other-thanas

be understood

less as from

than from a formalist

form

to symbolism,

notion of convention

to a lin-

guistic one, exemplified in the move from mannerism to baroque86

In the process, Learning from

Las Vegas revisits themes and motifs from Complexity and Contradiction in order to drawasharp
line
between

'architectural'

and 'referential'

meaning,

rephrasing
the original
ambitions
of the older
book87 After all, as I have argued, Complexityand

278
Mannerism
Complexity

and meaning

and Contradiction

in
in

Architecture
Maarten

Oelbeke

Arehiteetural

Contradiction did advocate mannerist architecture

as the proper agent of mannerist times, and
evinced the belief that the irony of subverted conventions would act upon society. In Learning from
Las Vegas, 'irony' no longer works its magic
through the play of forms, but greasesthe social interaction surrounding planning, design and building:
lrony may be the tooi with which to confront and
combine divergent values in architecture for a
pluralist society and to accommodate the differences in values that arise between architects
and clients. Social classes rarely come together,
but if they can make temporary alliances in the
designing and building of multivalued community

Venturi's
and

detects

notion

41;

Mass.,
2004),
6. In this,

Belknap

Graham

Museum

Foundation

Art Papers on Architecof Modern

and Doubleday,

from

notions

M.

Robert

Venturi,

and

mannerism

in the texts

'In

the

Academy's

Tour and the

pp. 42-55,

arrived

however,

that

and S. Lavin, 'Interview

and

Robert

books since their

the

canonical

publication.

view

almost teleological
taining

to

somewhat

it will

'form'

of

the

pp. 126-145,

with

esp. p. 127.

ture, 2nd ed., The Museum

of Modern

Architecture,

Museum

catalogue
Bowron

many views
about

two

books,

and

1 (New

Foundation,

5. For instance,

of an exhibition

as the year 2000;

Brasini

Museum

of Art, March

and

see: E. Peters

MerreIl,

2000)

16th - May 28th,

revisited':

readdress th is work

R. Venturi,

Mass,

Learning to 'symbolism'-is
11

Venturi,
pp

The MIT Press, 1996),

in 'Armando

lconography and Elee-

tronies upon a Generie Arehiteeture

Complexity per-

tradietion in Arehitecture, Joumal of the Society of

Art

1977), p. 19.

J. J. Rishel, eds, Art in Rome in the

10. Robert Venturi would

their

N. Milier, review of Complexity and Con-

Art Papers on
of Modern

Doubleday,

preoccupation

as recent
and

Vork,

2000J

both

reductive.

Denise Scott

Complexity and Contradiction in Arehitee-

8. R. Venturi,

of

Still, as I hope to show,

relationship-with
and

affirm

expressed

of

process of

Perspeeta, 28 (1997),

Venturi',

Vegas. As a consequence,
has

the concept

quite late in the writing

[Philadelphia

himself,

esp.

present in Complexity and Contra-

Eighteenth Century, exh. cat. (London,

Venturi,

Garden:
Revision of

was, at least expli-

Complexity and Contradiction and Leaming from Las

th at

Press,

the book (see below)

to locate Venturi's

baroque

University

AA Files, 56 (2007),

9. This is an explicit
this essay attempts

Davidovici,

Arehiteeture as

Brown,

Harvard

the Grand

and the Graham

of mannerism

Irina

of Complexity and Contradiction

Stierli,

diction.' I do believe,

2. Ibid., p. 23.
4. In other words,

instance,

Press of

citly, only marginally

p. 11

3. Ibid, p. 11.

in

whoie' . On Venturi

p. 54f, who writes that 'mannerism

Art and the

1966),

(1967),

baroque

Oase, 65 (2004), pp. 100-

D. Scott

my reading

differs

Brown

of Modern

1 (New Vork,

and

esp. pp. 12 -40.

Modernism',

Complexity and Contradiction in Arehitee-

ture, The Museum

see, for

R. Venturi

26,

Signs and Systems. For a Mannerist Time (Cambridge,

Notes and references

ture,

difficult

and Artifice',

7. P. Barriere

R. Venturi,

[JSAH],

an echo of Wlfflin's

of 'the

mannerism,

'Abstraction

architecture, a sense of paradox and some irony

and wit will be needed on all sides88

Historians

pp. 318-19,

(Cambridge,

pp. 59-61

Complexity and Contradietion, 1966, op. cit.,

19-20.

12. Ibid., p. 18.

279
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 15
Number 3

13. My thanks to Robert Venturi for his kind elucidations on

p. 13. See E. Levy, Propaganda and the Jesuit

Venturi, 'Notes for a Lecture Celebrating the Centennial

Baroque (Berkeley, University of California

of the American Academy in Rome Delivered in

2004), pp. 50-52.

Chicago' and 'Adorable Discoveries When I was a

Semi-Naive Fellow at the American Academy in Rome
That I Never Forget': Venturi, lconography and Electronies, op. cit, pp. 47-58; Stierli, 'In the Academy's
Garden', op. cit, demonstrates the impact of Venturi's
European travels on Complexityand Contradiction.
14. Venturi, Complexityand Contradiction, 1977, op. cit.,

22. One illustration

Press,

in Complexity and Contradiction,

1966, op. cit, no. 33, is credited to Argan's book on

Borromini of 1952.
23. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit.,
pp.44-45.
24. See, for instance, ibid., 1966, pp. 30, 37, 41, 44,
46-49,51,59,64,91.
25. See Venturi, 'Notes for a Lecture', op. cit, p. 50. See

P 14.
15. Venturi, Complexityand Contradiction, 1966, op. cit:

also Stierli, 'In the Academy's Garden,' op. cit, p. 46,

photograph credits nos 14, 24, 165, 190. Most cred-

who shows that Venturi was especially interested in

ited publications date from after 1955.

baroque architecture during his first trip to Rome in

16. For a comparison of the imagery of both works, see

D. Fausch, 'Robert Venturi's and Paolo Portoghesi's
photographs

of

Rome',

Daidalos,

66

(1997),

pp 76-83.

1948.
26. P Barriere and S. Lavin, 'Interview with Denise Scatt
Brown and Robert Venturi,' op. cit, p. 136 'Weil,
speaking of influence and Palladio, one of the most

17. The Getty Archives contain: Richard Krautheimer, Lec-

rt

21 G. C. Argan, 'La 'Retorica' e l'Arte Barocca', op. cit,

this point. On Venturi's stay in Rome, see also Robert

thrilling

and relevant experiences I ever had was

tures on Baroque architecture, ca. 1950. Description:

reading Rudolph Wittkower's book on Palladio. There

94 pp. Biographical or Historical Notes: Architectural

are two parts to that work. One is focused on the

historian. Summary: Notes by a professional note-

issue of proportion, which does not interest me at

taker on Krautheimer's course at the Institute of

all-it

Fine Arts, N.Y.U, containing detailed architectural

modular. But Wittkower's

analyses, bibliographies, etc. Provenance Given by

as a Mannerist, and not the orthodox Classicist that

Howard Saaiman to Patricia Waddy. (My thanks to

Lord Burlington and his followers made him out to

interpretation of Palladio

be, th at was a great revelation.'

Evonne Levy for this reference)

18. SeeJ. Ackerman, 'In Memoriam Richard Krautheimer',
Joumal of the Society of Architectural

never has, not the golden mean nor Corb's

Historians

[JSAH], 54, 1 (1995), p. 6.

19. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit.,
p.14.
20. G. C. Argan, 'La 'Retorica' e l'Arte Barocca'; and
G. Morpurgo, 'Aristotelismo e Barocco', in Atti del 111
Congresso internazionale di Studi Umanistici: Retorica

27. A. A. payne, 'Rudolf Wittkower and Architectural Principles in the Age of Modernism', Joumal of the Society
of Architectural

Historians [JSAH], 53, 3 (1994),

pp. 322-342.
28. R. Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of
Humanism, with a new introduction by the author,
3rd ed. (New York and London, Norton, 1971), p. 76.
29. Ibid., p. 76. Here my reading of Wittkower's Architec-

e barocco (Rome, Fratelli Bocca, 1955), pp. 9-14,

tural Principles diverges from Payne, 'Rudolf Witt-

pp 33-46.

kower and Architectural Principles', op. cit, p. 327.

280
Mannerism and meaning in
Complexity

and Contradiction

in

Architecture
Maarten

Oelbeke

30. Wittkower, Architectural Principles, op. cit., p. 82. (My

of recent years' (pp. 124-25).

Sypher's work serves

as an example.

emphasis.)
31 Ibid, pp. 83-84.

43. Sypher, Four Stages, op. cit, p. 5.

32. R.Wittkower, 'Michelangelo's Biblioteca Laurenziana',

44. Ibid, p. 6.

Art Bulletin, 16,2 (1934), pp. 123-218, esp. 207-16.

45. Ibid, p. 4.

Wittkower, Architectural Principles, p. 85f refers to this

46. R. Alexander, review of Four Stages of Renaissance

passage wh en he addresses 'inversion as a Mannerist

Style: Transformations in Art and Literature 14001700, by Wylie Sypher, College Art Journal, 15, 3

principle'
33. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit.,

(1956), pp. 279-281.

47. Sypher, Four Stages, op. cit., p. 9.

p.22.

48. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit.,

34. Ibid, pp. 24, 30, 75.

p.26.

35. Ibid, pp. 47-48 and 54.

36. Ibid, pp. 49 and 50.

49. Sypher, Four Stages, op. cit., pp. 5, 17-18.

37. Ibid, p. 51

50. Ibid, pp. 18-30.

38. Ibid, p. 34 note.

51. Ibid, pp. 184-85.

39. W. Sypher, Four Stages in Renaissance Style. Trans-

52. R.Venturi, 'From Invention to Convention in Architec-

formations in Art and Literature 1400-1700 (Garden

ture', in, Venturi, Iconography and Electronics, op. cit.,

p.238.

City, NY, Doubleday, 1955), pp. 124-125.

40. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit.,

pp. 32, 34. See also the remark that the 'Mannerist

p.38.

elliptical plan of the sixteenth century is both centra I

41 Sypher, Four Stages, op. cit., pp. 124-5.

42. An

earlier, unrelated

methodology

transposition

onto literature

of Wlfflin's

is proposed by Fritz

Strich. See, for instance, his 'Die bertragung des

Barockbegriffs von der bildenden Kunst auf die Dichtung', in, R. Stamm, ed., Die Kunstformen des Barockzeitalters
pp. 243-65.

53. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit.,

and directional. lts culmination is Bernini's Sant'Andrea

al Quirinale' (p. 32)
54. Wittkower,

'Michelangelo's

Biblioteca Laurenziana,'

op. cit., p. 210; Sypher, Four Stages, op. cit., p. 225.

55. My implicit contention here is that the Santa Susanna,

1956),

like, for instance, Giacomo della Porta's faade for the

The close interaction between literary

Gesu (another conspicuous absentee) could have fitted

(Munich,

Lehnen

Verlag,

history and art history in baroque studies is also

apparent in R. Wellek, 'The concept of Baroque

Venturi's argument.
56. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit..

in Literary Scholarship', in, S G. Nichols, Jr, ed., Con-

'Acknowledgments'

cepts of Criticism (New Haven and London, Yale

was written in 1962' In P Barriere .and S. Lavin, 'Inter-

states that '[most] of this book

University Press, 1963) This essay was written

in

view with Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi', op.

1945 and expanded in 1962 (p. 115), and Wellek

cit., p. 128, Venturi and Denise Scott Brown recall how

signals 'the attempt to replace the term [baroque]

Complexity and Contradiction grew out of the notes

or to break it up into several components',

and,

for the course in the theory of architecture that they

of mannerism, as

taught at the Architecture School of the University

'the most widespread feature of baroque discussions

of Pennsylvania between 1962 and 1964. See also

most notably, the introduction

281
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 15
Number 3

Theory: A

9 (1965), pp. 17-56. An introductory note mentions

Historical Survey, 7673-7968 (Cambridge, Cambridge

H. F. Mallgrave, Modern Architectural

th at the text is copyrighted 1964 and scheduled for

University Press, 2005), p. 400; Stierli, 'In the Acad-

publication in 1965. Mallgrave, Modern Architectural

emy's Garden: op. cit, p. 54 note.

57. Venturi, ComplexityandContradiction,

Theory, op. cit,

1966, op. cit,

p.18.

p. 401, remarks that the book

published in 1966 was 'substantially edited'.

66. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1965, op. cit,

58. Ibid, p. 28.

p. 18. Compare this with the quotation in Complexity

59. Ibid, pp. 28-30.

and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit., p. 28.

60. P J. Finkelpearlin Joumal of the Society of Architectural

67. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1965, op. cit,

Historians[JSAHl,38, 2 (1979), pp. 203-205, esp. 203;

p. 20. In Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit,

a review related to

p. 71, the same citation, now without added empha-

the

following

publications:

R. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 2nd ed, 1977, op. cit., R. Venturi, D. Scott

sis, opens Chapter 9, 'The Inside and the Outside'.

68. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit,

Brown and 5 Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas, 2nd

p. 26: 'Though we no longer argue over the primacy

ed. (Cambridge, Mass., The MIT

of form over function (which follows which7),

c. W

Press, 1977);

Moore and N. Pyle, eds, The Yale Mathematics

we

cannot ignore their interdependence. The desire for a

Building Competition (New Haven and London, Yale

complex architecture, with

University Press,1974); 'Venturi and Rauch, 1970-77',

tions, is not only areaction to the banality or prettiness

Architecture and Urbanism, 57 (November, 1974);

of current architecture. It is an attitude common in the

'Venturi and Rauch. 25 Offentliche Bauten', Werk-

Mannerist periods: the sixteenth century in Italy or the

Archithese, 7-8

(Julyj August,

its attendant contradic-

1977); Progressive

Hellenistic period in Classicalart ... Today this attitude

Architecture, 58 (October, 1977); 'Venturi and Rauch',

is again relevant to both the medium of architecture

L'Architecture

and the program in architecture.' In Venturi, Complex-

D'Aujourd'hui,

147

(June,

1978).

Venturi's reliance on Empson is also stressed in

ity and Contradiction, 1965, op. cit, p. 19, a shorter

Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory,op. cit, p. 401 .

version of this passage opens Chapter 2, 'Complexity

61 Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit,

p.18.
62. One target of New Critical practice was the paraphrase
as a vehicle for interpretation.

versus Picturesqueness': 'Complexity must be constant

in architecture. It must correspond in form and function.

We no longer argue over the primacy of

farm or function; we cannot ignore their interdepen-

63. Sypher, Four Stages, op. cit, p. 12.

dence, however.' In the book, Chapter 2 begins with

64. The fundamental rale of New Criticism in the study of

the second paragraph of the earlier version.

'Baroque culture and the Baroque as a critica I concept'

is mentioned by T Hampton, 'Introduction. Baroques',

69. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction , 1966, op. cit,

p.46.

in 'Baroque Topographies: LiteraturejHistory jPhilos-

70. Ibid, p. 24.

ophy', special issue, Yale French Studies, 80 (1991),

71. Ibid, pp. 46-47.

pp 1-9, esp. 2.

72. Ibid, p. 51 Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory,

65. R.Venturi, 'Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture: Selections from a Forthcoming Book', Perspecta,

op. cit, pp. 401-403,

rightly stressesthat, throughout

the course of the book, increasing attention is paid to

282
Mannerism and meaning in

Complexity and Contradicton in

Architecture
Maarten

73.

Oelbeke

architecture's social rale, through an engagement with

points:

the everyday and its objects, similar to Pop Art.

commonplace elements are often the main source of

'Pop

Art

has demonstrated

that

these

Mannerism as a result of cultural crisis is an idea with a

the occasional variety and vitality of our cities, and

long pedigree in Italian historiography, and prominent

th at it is not their banality or vulgarity as elements

in, for instance, B. Zevi and P. Portoghesi, eds,

which make for the banality or vulgarity of the

Miche/angi%

whole scene, but rather their contextua/ re/ationships

architetto (Turin, Einaudi, 1963). Com-

p/exity and Contradiction drew most of the images

of space and sca/e' (my italics), Venturi, Comp/exity

of Michelangelo's work from Zevi and Portoghesi's

and Contradiction , 1966, op. cit, p. 52; 'Pop artists

have shown the value of the old clich used in a new

book: see photograph credits 94, 95, 111, 129, 181

context to achieve a new meaning-the

74. Venturi, Comp/exity and Contradiction, 1977, op. cit,

the art gallery-to

pp. 12, 14.

soup can in

make the common uncommon'

(my italics), Venturi, 5cott Brown and Izenour, Learning

75. Venturi, 5cott Brown and Izenour, Learning from Las

Vegas,op. cit., p. 3. In Venturi's later definition of man-

from Las Vegas, op. cit, p. 72. The work of Allan Col-

nerism in Architecture as Signs and Systems (2004),

quhoun and Charles Jencks now receives an accolade:

op. cit, convention is the key concept: see pp. 74-75.

see Venturi, 5cott Brown and Izenour, Learning from

Las Vegas, op. cit,

76. Venturi, 5cott Brown and Izenour, Learning from Las

pp. 8, 131-132.

It should be

noted that August Heckscher's The Pub/ic Happiness,

Vegas, op. cit., p. 7.

a study of the confusion brought about by shifting

77. /bid, p. 107.

78. /bid, p. 104.

conceptions of private and public life, used in Com-

79. Ibid, p. 115.

p/exity and Contradiction to define the complications

80. Venturi, Comp/exity and Contradiction, 1966, op. cit,

of contemporary society, also appears in Learning

from Las Vegas, op. cit, pp. 53f, in the section on

p.45.
81

Venturi, 5cott Brown and Izenour, Learning from Las

'Inclusion and the difficult order', another passage

Vegas, op. cit, p. 115.

clearly reminiscent of Comp/exity and Contradiction.

The distinction between mannerism and symbolism is

82. /bid, p. 116.

83. /bid, pp. 18-19.

reiterated in Venturi's later writings: see, for instance,

84. 5ee also Venturi, 'Notes for a Lecture', op. cit, p. 54.

Venturi, 'Notes for a Lecture', op. cit, p. 53.

85.

86.

5ee 'Nolli: Sector VII. Venturi & Rauch', in, M. Graves,

87.

In the Note to the 5econd Edition, Venturi writes that

ed., 'Roma Interrotta', AD Profiles 20, Architectura/

he wished the title of the book had been Comp/exity

Desk]n, 49, 3-4 (1979), pp. 66-67.

and Contradiction in Architectura/ Form. 5ee Venturi,

The text is a shor-

tened, but otherwise unaltered, version of the passage

Comp/exity and Contradiction , 1977, op. cit, p. 14.

referred to in Note 83.

This points to his ambition to distinguish the aim of

References to T. 5 Eliot or other New Critical voices

Comp/exity and Contradiction clearly from Learning

barely figure

from Las Vegas, the second edition of which, also of

in Learning from Las Vegas, most

was subtitled

notably, in the chapter on 'inclusion and allusion in

1977,

architecture' , which partly rehearses the chapter on

Architectura/ Form.

the conventional element in Comp/exity and Contradiction. Again, it is instructive to compare two similar

The Forgotten Symbo/ism of

88. Venturi, 5cott Brown and Izenour, Learning from Las

Vegas, op. cit., p. 161