A Curious Impost Block at Iford Manor

At Harold Peto’s Iford Manor by there is a neo-Romanesque pavilion called the Casita on the upper terrace. Its wonderfully weathered architrave is supported on double stone columns with fused capitals (apparently pink Verona marble dating from c. 1200) with an impost block between. This impost block appears to be composed of three pieces of wood dovetailed (or rather straight-tailed) together, as if the side pieces were hinged on the central one. One begins by wondering why Peto has done this. The purpose of an impost block is to spread the load between architrave and capital, a task which an intact piece of wood would do better, although in the end any structural difference would be negligible. Perhaps his pieces of wood were too short? Then one realizes that the grain of the wood continues through all three pieces of wood: it is in fact a single piece of wood after all. The wood has been carved in such a way as to give the impression that there are ‘dovetails’: they are fictive.  What game is Peto playing here? Is it a sophisticated neo-Mannerist trick? Does it have a precedent in Romanesque architecture? Whatever the reason, it is a delightful conceit. If forces us to swivel the hinged sides of the impost in our mind’s eye, and that makes it very interesting for the way it manipulates the spectator’s response. Also intriguing is the profile of the side pieces (which we must now call ends) of the impost block, which are more Chinese than Romanesque. And how did his carpenter make it? Cutting thick pieces of wood is a nightmare. The only tool which comes near is a bandsaw, and even a bandsaw will not do such sharp curves as these. The deep hollows would have been drilled; the rest probably involved templates, or outlines on either side and a series of straight sawcuts, with lots of chiselling.

Robin Whalley’s book on Peto states that the ‘highly decorative architrave’ is ‘probably of Venetian origin’. I am not clear whether he means by this the style is Venetian, and the manufacture local, or that the wood is actually old and Venetian (if follows mention of the columns being of Verona marble). Peto apparently was thinking of Spain, as H. Avray Tipping in 1922 expained that a casita was ‘a Spanish form of loggia’, but Whalley says ‘aspects of its construction are borrowed mainly from Italy’. (Robin Whalley, The Great Edwardian Gardens of Harold Peto. From the archives of Country Life, London: Aurum Press, 2007, p. 177.)

Posted in All Posts, Architecture, Art, Construction, Design, English Gardens, Fabriques, Garden History | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Impossibility of Australian Architectural Connoisseurship

‘An Australian, however well-informed, simply cannot distinguish between a piece of Trust House timbering and a genuine Tudor building; an Englishman however uncultured knows at once …’. [Evelyn Waugh to John Betjeman, cited in A.N. Wilson’s Biography of Betjeman, 2007, p. 170. Actually an analogy with Catholics and Anglo-Catholics all looking alike to Betjeman, according to Waugh.]

Evelyn Waugh having thus established the impossibility of an Australian engaging in architectural connoisseurship, it  may be unwise to embark on this theme. And perhaps he is right, given how dreadful is the builder’s mock Federation, worse perhaps than the mock-Tudor thirties semi-detached so hated by early twentieth-century British architectural aesthetes.

A builder was describing to be a building he had recently clad in blackbutt, and how it expanded and buckled with time. The modernist preoccupation with new materials has carried over into Australian domestic housing, where the aspirational who want to make a statement feel it is necessary to  experiment with untried materials. There is a lot of this in Grand Designs too. But in the end aesthetic pleasure derives from getting the shape right. Better to focus on shape and appearance, and use established materials. Weatherboard is good example of such a material. Being basically the same technique used for boats from the Vikings onwards, it can flex and bend and still work even if the structure behind is falling apart and the stumps are gone. And the regular parallel lines provide a pleasing enlivening of the surface, helped by the necessary small irregularities.

Posted in All Posts, Architecture, Comment, Garden History | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

On Baroque Gardens

I picked up Tim Richardson’s The Arcadian Friends. Inventing the English Landscape Garden at the local remainder bookshop. Although the subject is the landscape garden it has an unusually sensitive account of the Baroque garden: ‘there is a tendency today to view this kind of seventeenth-century ‘formality’—what a strange term for it!—as sterile and lifeless.’ [I have had this point of view expressed with some force by a publisher of gardening books who ought to have known better.]  … But the one thing that has become clear from experiencing recently restored baroque gardens on the ground is how intimate and engaging they can be. … Far from being sterile, ‘unnatural’ experiments in geometry, as their unadorned remains have so often suggested to us and as they can appear in contemporary topographical bird’s-eye views, in their day these gardens surrounded visitors with fragrant flowers. Looking at a contemporary engravings by Johannes Kip it is all to easy to be overwhelmed by the linearity and to forget that these gardens had an intimate aspect; you need to imagine that you have been beamed down into the place and can walk amid the trees, fruit and flowers.’ [p. 18]

More than that is the fact that a design that is conceived in plan, and then ‘extruded’ in relief by plantings, when seen from ground level becomes infinitely complex. You perceive that there is an underlying order, but what you see is a visual field of great complexity. In a genuinely natural or random planting you see only a disorderly visual field, without the underling order that your perception seeks to comprehend.  Hence although parterres can often be seen to advantage from a high viewpoint, this is not always necessary. Head height is often as high as you need to go, and if you go too high the parterre becomes too obvious. To illustrate these points, the first three images shows a platte-bande at Fontainebleau, to show how the experience up close is intensely involved with plants. The repetition of the planting and colours makes you much more aware of the flowers than if they were planted more randomly. The fourth image shows a parterre that I have always felt does not quite work: at the Palazzo Ruspoli at Vignanello. The high view from the palazzo is almost too high, while the close view lacks an engagement with plants: there is only box. This green and flowerless garden is essentially an early twentieth-century Italian construct, the result of an attempt to define nationalistically the ‘Italian’ garden style as opposed to the French and English styles. Before this it would have been planted with flowers within the box, and before that… what? It is claimed to be a surviving Renaissance garden, a box parterre like those seen in the Dupérac engraving of the Villa d’Este, but one wonders whether it was not rather a low parterre de broderie with coloured gravel. The Villa Lante and Villa Doria-Pamphilj parterres were once of this form, as old photos clearly show, but have grown up to become dense green high box parterres like those at Vignanello.

Posted in All Posts, Baroque Gardens, Book Commentaries, Garden History | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment