Wp2 Revised

Emely Lopez 3/22/19 Masha Fedorova Writing 2 8AM

Academic Writing in the Architectural History Field If an architectural historian did not write about their findings and studies, their work would not be known to other scholars and people interested in the field. Articles, which are concise with information, are the most common type of publication found within the field. In order to keep their work from being too confusing or too long, therefore, writers use organization, niche vocabulary, and thorough descriptions of the building or site (including the context surrounding it). These are all essential to the making of the article, and by using these methods, the article’s purpose for both reader and writer are clear. One niche subdiscipline within the history of architecture field is history of Roman architecture, and this paper will specifically focus on the way scholars write about the Pantheon, and how all of the methods described above are implemented throughout various different articles to make a coherent argument that allows the writers to join a discussion with others who are interested in the subject. Organization is the basic way in which the writer chooses to incorporate information into their paper. Because the reader’s perception of the article is based on how well the article is organized, figuring out how to organize the paper is essential for the writer so as not to confuse the intended audience with a badly organized paper. Bad organization of a paper make it easier for ideas to become jumbled up and confusing, which disrupts the reader’s understanding of the work. This leads to an ineffective paper. During our Roman architecture unit, an article assigned to us as a class reading, called “The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Progeny” by William Macdonald, focuses on the methods that the Romans used to build the Pantheon as well as the reasons why those methods were employed, while also providing historical context for the

Emely Lopez 3/22/19 Masha Fedorova Writing 2 8AM

reader. It is organized so that after the describes the building methods, he immediately explains why. Macdonald writes that “The Roman passion for sequence and organization, for carefully thinking out interrelationships between one thing and another, necessary of course to the success of all major construction, but followed through by the Romans with great thoroughness” (43). In this example, we see that the claim of the article is clear and concise, and as a complement to what he is arguing he implements various diagrams and images throughout the article. The professor of UCSB’s Art History 6F, the class which focuses on the history of architecture, said that he chose this article for how well it was organized and how it was written at an undergraduate level, which made it easier for students to follow along and understand the message (personal communication, February 8, 2019). The way an article is organized is the skeleton of the paper, it provides structure for both the writer and the reader as the most solid part of the paper. If the organization of the paper is the skeleton, then the specific vocabulary that a writer uses is the muscle. The vocabulary used by scholars in the history of architecture field is a mix of words from various different disciplines, including History, Archaeology, and Architecture. Despite being borrowed words from other fields, the connotation surrounding them and the meanings change when used by architectural historians (for example, if it is a word taken from architecture, then the meaning tends to become less mathematical and more conceptual). Words such as “trabeated” (post and lintel construction, which means two vertical posts supporting one horizontal piece) or “arcuated” (which means arched) all connect to a bigger theme; specific architectural history terms, such as “longitudinal,” go from being a characteristic (“the building

Emely Lopez 3/22/19 Masha Fedorova Writing 2 8AM

is long”) to being a part of the theme of hierarchy within a building (“the building is long because one specific side of it is more sacred than the other”), and words such as “centralized,” transformed from being merely a geometrical characteristic to again, part of the theme of hierarchy (in fact, one of the most famous buildings with this theme is the Pantheon itself). By using these terms, the members of the community can discuss ideas with each other having the exact word they need to get their point across or articulate what they mean. When scholars talk about the Pantheon, they use words which describe both the materials and the way they were used but also conceptual terms such as centralization and hierarchy. In “On the Structure of the Roman Pantheon” for example, in the introduction of the article, the authors wrote “Other factors cited for the technical success of the Pantheon include the use of a series of massive, concentric stepped rings and the lightening of the dome by coffering and gradated, light-weight aggregates” (pg.1). This describes the way that the Pantheon, specifically the dome (the most recognizable part of the building) was structured by using specific vocabulary, such as “coffering” and “gradated,” that pertains specifically to their discipline. When “setting the scene” for the architectural article, the context is essential for the reader to understand points that the writer is trying to make. Providing context for the reader is fundamental to the understanding of the building, it is like the nervous system of the paper: without it, there would be no way to fully understand the building and why it is important to study it. Included within the idea of “context” is the historical context (when was the building built who was it commissioned by, why was it commissioned, what was it used for, how has it been used over time, etc.), and what the surrounding landscape is and was. Writers cannot rely

Emely Lopez 3/22/19 Masha Fedorova Writing 2 8AM

solely on images to get their point across because there are no images of what the buildings originally looked like, so when talking about the buildings through a historical lens they must be very descriptive. In order to understand broader concepts that shape the building, such as regional influence, religion, and more, historical context is imperative. Actual photographs, maps, and diagrams are often used in these types of articles because many of the concepts require the reader to visualize what the author is saying. As previously mentioned, the historical context is imperative for the reader to understand the building that is being written about. While the articles may talk about the history of the building in specific, it is important that the historical context is also mentioned: the history of the surrounding area, the history of the society that built it, etc. In an article written by Indra Kagis McEwen titled “Hadrian’s Rhetoric I: The Pantheon” the historical context of the Pantheon is the main focus rather than the building itself: rather than solely describing the structure of the Pantheon, it’s more about the ruler Hadrian and his role in the building of the structure and how his role influenced the way that the Pantheon was built. As McEwen provides historical context of the Pantheon, he writes “Hadrian built on the site of an earlier Pantheon, which had been a rectangular building with its entrance on the long side. Agrippa had completed his structure as part of the Imperial building program, and had meant it to honor Augustus” (pg.2). In this example, we are given the historical context of the site which is essential to understanding the overall argument that the author is making. This article focuses more on the why rather than the how, which is a common angle that architectural historians take because it allows for more discussion.

Emely Lopez 3/22/19 Masha Fedorova Writing 2 8AM

Authors, as mentioned before, often use photographs and diagrams in addition to the thorough descriptions of the setting. In Mark, Robert, and Paul Hutcherson’s article “On the Structure of the Roman Pantheon,” the reader is given a thorough description of the Pantheon and its inner structural workings. When they are describing, for example, the “success” of the Pantheon dome, Mark and Hutchinson write “The dome itself is assumed to have been erected on timber centering so that, in effect, dome forces were ‘turned on’ all at once with the removal of the centering” (pg.3-4). While this example is brief, it reflects that throughout the article, many descriptions are given. Various diagrams, images, and specific numerical data that covers all of the bases of description are used throughout the article. This article cites MacDonald’s article often as well, because it meticulously describes and explains the images and diagrams that are implemented. The description is useful because it allows for the reader to ask questions and therefore participate in a discussion about the topic. Without architectural historians writing down their work and getting it published, the discipline of architectural history would be virtually extinct. It is the lifeline of this discipline, because unlike other disciplines, observation is not enough to understand all of the themes and ideas, and other scholars would not be able to discuss these things with each other because there would not be enough material for a discussion to take place. Writing in this discipline allows for the author’s claim to reach far and wide, which sparks discussion amongst other scholars. Richard Wittman, UCSB’s professor of Art History 6F, put it this way: “It is the main way in which your work gets known to other people.” He also admits that in his experience in writing for this discipline, he finds that writing about the concepts is a great thinking tool for those who

Emely Lopez 3/22/19 Masha Fedorova Writing 2 8AM

are within the field. By writing about architectural history, you allow yourself to process the information better and fully understand it, and you’re joining a conversation with other scholars who are interested in the subject.

Emely Lopez 3/22/19 Masha Fedorova Writing 2 8AM

Works Cited Mark, Robert, and Paul Hutchinson. “On the Structure of the Roman Pantheon.” The Art Bulletin, vol. 68, no. 1, 1986, pp. 24–34. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3050861. Macdonald, William L., The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Progeny, 1976. McEwen, Indra Kagis. “Hadrian's Rhetoric I: The Pantheon.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, no. 24, 1993, pp. 55–66. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20166879. Wittman, Richard. Personal Interview. 8 Feb. 2019