Anda di halaman 1dari 5


Empat Elemen Arsitektur adalah sebuah buku oleh arsitek Jerman Gottfried Semper. Diterbitkan
pada tahun 1851, itu adalah upaya untuk menjelaskan asal-usul arsitektur melalui lensa antropologi.
Buku ini membagi arsitektur menjadi empat elemen yang berbeda:. perapian, atap, kandang dan
gundukan [1] Asal-usul masing-masing elemen dapat ditemukan di kerajinan tradisional kuno

perapian - metalurgi, keramik

atap - pertukangan

kandang - tekstil, tenun

gundukan - pekerjaan tanah

Semper, menyatakan bahwa perapian adalah elemen pertama diciptakan: "Tanda pertama dari
pemukiman dan sisanya setelah berburu, pertempuran, dan berkeliaran di padang pasir saat ini,
seperti ketika orang-orang pertama yang hilang surga, pengaturan dari perapian dan . pencahayaan
dari menghidupkan kembali, pemanasan, dan makanan mempersiapkan api sekitar perapian
kelompok pertama dibentuk: sekitar perapian kelompok pertama berkumpul, di sekitarnya aliansi
pertama kali dibentuk, di sekitarnya kasar konsep agama pertama dimasukkan ke dalam kebiasaan
dari kultus. "[2]

Dan Semper melanjutkan: "Sepanjang semua fase masyarakat perapian terbentuk yang fokus suci
sekitar yang mengambil pesanan dan bentuk Ini adalah elemen pertama dan yang paling penting
dari arsitektur di sekitar itu dikelompokkan tiga lainnya unsur:.. Atap, kandang, dan gundukan. The
negations melindungi atau pembela api tungku terhadap tiga elemen bermusuhan alam. "[3]

Lampiran (dinding) yang dikatakan memiliki asal-usul mereka dalam menenun. Sama seperti pagar
dan pena ditenun tongkat, bentuk yang paling dasar pembagi ruang masih terlihat digunakan di
belahan dunia saat ini adalah layar kain. Hanya ketika persyaratan fungsional tambahan ditempatkan
pada kandang (seperti struktur kebutuhan berat-bearing) tidak materialitas perubahan dinding
untuk sesuatu di luar kain.

Tikar dan penggunaannya dalam gubuk primitif bergantian sebagai lantai, dinding, dan menutupi
frame dianggap oleh Gottfried Semper menjadi asal-usul arsitektur.

"Sempers Empat Elemen Arsitektur merupakan upaya pada teori universal arsitektur." [4] [dead link]
The Four Elements of Architecture tidak klasifikasi tipologi tertentu melainkan lebih universal dalam
upaya untuk menawarkan lebih umum teori arsitektur. "daripada menggambarkan satu bangunan
tipologi sebagai awal, ia menganggap apa rakitan dan sistem yang universal dalam semua struktur
primitif adat." [5]

Empat Elemen Arsitektur sebagai teori archeologically didorong menekankan fungsionalisme sebagai
prasyarat untuk intensionalitas. [6]
Sempers teori gubuk primitif seperti menempatkan keempat oleh Four Elements of Architecture
dianggap signifikan dalam teori kontemporer. Semper terus mengeksplorasi empat elemen lebih
dekat dalam karya-karya selanjutnya seperti Der Stils. [Rujukan?]

The Four Elements of Architecture is a book by the German architect Gottfried Semper. Published in
1851, it is an attempt to explain the origins of architecture through the lens of anthropology. The
book divides architecture into four distinct elements: the hearth, the roof, the enclosure and the
mound.[1] The origins of each element can be found in the traditional crafts of ancient "barbarians":

hearth metallurgy, ceramics

roof carpentry

enclosure textile,weaving

mound earthwork

Semper, stating that the hearth was the first element created: "The first sign of settlement and rest
after the hunt, the battle, and wandering in the desert is today, as when the first men lost paradise,
the setting up of the fireplace and the lighting of the reviving, warming, and food preparing flame.
Around the hearth the first groups formed: around the hearth the first groups assembled; around it
the first alliances formed; around it the first rude religious concepts were put into the customs of a

And Semper continues: "Throughout all phases of society the hearth formed that sacred focus
around which took order and shape. It is the first and most important element of architecture.
Around it were grouped the other three elements: the roof, the enclosure, and the mound. The
protecting negations or defenders of the hearths flame against three hostile elements of nature."[3]

Enclosures (walls) were said to have their origins in weaving. Just as fences and pens were woven
sticks, the most basic form of a spatial divider still seen in use in parts of the world today is the fabric
screen. Only when additional functional requirements are placed on the enclosure (such as
structural weight-bearing needs) does the materiality of the wall change to something beyond

The mat and its use in primitive huts interchangeably as floors, walls, and draped over frames was
considered by Gottfried Semper to be the origins of architecture.

Sempers Four Elements of Architecture were an attempt at a universal theory of

architecture.[4][dead link] The Four Elements of Architecture was not the classification of a specific
typology but rather was more universal in its attempt to offer a more general theory of
architecture. Rather than describing one building typology as being the beginning, he considers
what assemblies and systems are universal in all indigenous primitive structures.[5]

The Four Elements of Architecture as an archeologically driven theory stressed functionalism as a

prerequisite to intentionality.[6]
Sempers primitive hut theory as put fourth by the Four Elements of Architecture is considered to be
significant in contemporary theory. Semper continues to explore the four elements more closely in
subsequent works such as Der Stils.[citation needed]


Ruskin's developing interest in architecture, and particularly in the Gothic revival, led to the first
work to bear his name, The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849).[34] It contained 14 plates etched by
the author. The title refers to seven moral categories that Ruskin considered vital to and inseparable
from all architecture: sacrifice, truth, power, beauty, life, memory and obedience. All would provide
recurring themes in his work.

Seven Lamps promoted the virtues of a secular and Protestant form of Gothic. It was a challenge to
the Catholic influence of A. W. N. Pugin. Ruskin argued that restoration is destruction; ancient
buildings should be preserved, but no attempt should be made to erase the accumulated history
encoded in their decay.[citation needed]

In August 1850 Ruskin and Effie were at Wenlock Abbey where Ruskin sketched some of the
arcading in the Norman Chapter House, which was used in The Stones of Venice.[35]

Art and design criticism[edit]

Ruskin's early work defended the reputation of J. M. W. Turner. He believed that all great art should
communicate an understanding and appreciation of nature. As such, inherited artistic conventions
should be rejected. Only by means of direct observation can an artist, through form and colour,
represent nature in art. He advised artists in Modern Painters I to: "go to Nature in all singleness of
heart... rejecting nothing, selecting nothing and scorning nothing."[187] By the 1850s. Ruskin was
celebrating the Pre-Raphaelites whose members, he said, had formed "a new and noble school" of
art that would provide a basis for a thoroughgoing reform of the art world.[188] For Ruskin, art
should communicate truth above all things. However, This could not be revealed by mere display of
skill, and must be an expression of the artist's whole moral outlook. Ruskin rejected the work of
Whistler because he considered it to epitomise a reductive mechanisation of art.[citation needed]

Ruskin's strong rejection of Classical tradition in The Stones of Venice typifies the inextricable mix of
aesthetics and morality in his thought: "Pagan in its origin, proud and unholy in its revival, paralysed
in its old age... an architecture invented, as it seems, to make plagiarists of its architects, slaves of its
workmen, and sybarites of its inhabitants; an architecture in which intellect is idle, invention
impossible, but in which all luxury is gratified and all insolence fortified."[189] Rejection of
mechanisation and standardisation informed Ruskin's theories of architecture, and his emphasis on
the importance of the Medieval Gothic style. He praised the Gothic for what he saw as its reverence
for nature and natural forms; the free, unfettered expression of artisans constructing and decorating
buildings; and for the organic relationship he perceived between worker and guild, worker and
community, worker and natural environment, and between worker and God. Attempts in the 19th
century, to reproduce Gothic forms (such as pointed arches), attempts which he had helped to
inspire, were not enough to make these buildings expressions of what Ruskin saw as true Gothic
feeling, faith, and organicism.

For Ruskin, the Gothic style in architecture embodied the same moral truths he sought to promote in
the visual arts. It expressed the 'meaning' of architectureas a combination of the values of
strength, solidity and aspirationall written, as it were, in stone. For Ruskin, creating true Gothic
architecture involved the whole community, and expressed the full range of human emotions, from
the sublime effects of soaring spires to the comically ridiculous carved grotesques and gargoyles.
Even its crude and "savage" aspects were proof of "the liberty of every workman who struck the
stone; a freedom of thought, and rank in scale of being, such as no laws, no charters, no charities
can secure."[190] Classical architecture, in contrast, expressed a morally vacuous and repressive
standardisation. Ruskin associated Classical values with modern developments, in particular with the
demoralising consequences of the industrial revolution, resulting in buildings such as the Crystal
Palace, which he criticised.[191] Although Ruskin wrote about architecture in many works over the
course of his career, his much-anthologised essay "The Nature of Gothic" from the second volume of
The Stones of Venice (1853) is widely considered to be one of his most important and evocative
discussions of his central argument.

Ruskin's theories indirectly encouraged a revival of Gothic styles, but Ruskin himself was often
dissatisfied with the results. He objected that forms of mass-produced faux Gothic did not exemplify
his principles, but showed disregard for the true meaning of the style. Even the Oxford University
Museum of Natural History, a building designed with Ruskin's collaboration, met with his
disapproval. The O'Shea brothers, freehand stone carvers chosen to revive the creative "freedom of
thought" of Gothic craftsmen, disappointed him by their lack of reverence for the task.

Ruskin's distaste for oppressive standardisation led to later works attacking Laissez-faire capitalism
which he considered to be at the root of it. His ideas provided inspiration for the Arts and Crafts
Movement, the founders of the National Trust, the National Art Collections Fund, and the Society for
the Protection of Ancient Buildings.

Ruskin's views on art, wrote Kenneth Clark, "cannot be made to form a logical system, and perhaps
owe to this fact a part of their value." Ruskin's accounts of art are descriptions of a superior type
that conjure images vividly in the mind's eye.[192] Clark neatly summarises the key features of
Ruskin's writing on art and architecture:

Art is not a matter of taste, but involves the whole man. Whether in making or perceiving a work of
art, we bring to bear on it feeling, intellect, morals, knowledge, memory, and every other human
capacity, all focused in a flash on a single point. Aesthetic man is a concept as false and
dehumanising as economic man.

Even the most superior mind and the most powerful imagination must found itself on facts, which
must be recognised for what they are. The imagination will often reshape them in a way which the
prosaic mind cannot understand; but this recreation will be based on facts, not on formulas or

These facts must be perceived by the senses, or felt; not learnt.

The greatest artists and schools of art have believed it their duty to impart vital truths, not only
about the facts of vision, but about religion and the conduct of life.

Beauty of form is revealed in organisms which have developed perfectly according to their laws of
growth, and so give, in his own words, 'the appearance of felicitous fulfilment of function.'

This fulfilment of function depends on all parts of an organism cohering and co-operating. This was
what he called the 'Law of Help,' one of Ruskin's fundamental beliefs, extending from nature and art
to society.

Good art is done with enjoyment. The artist must feel that, within certain reasonable limits, he is
free, that he is wanted by society, and that the ideas he is asked to express are true and important.

Great art is the expression of epochs where people are united by a common faith and a common
purpose, accept their laws, believe in their leaders, and take a serious view of human destiny.[193]