Talk:Classical order

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 28 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Psloann.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hmm. Named something else? But unless the word 'classical' and 'order' are in the new title (Orders of classical architecture or some such) it will be less useful.

Or perhaps Classical orders of architecture. --Stephen Gilbert

Fine with me. I'm perhaps too close to the issue, because the term 'architecture' seems redundant. There aren't 'classical orders' in any other fields - classical forms, classical types, classical literature. --MichaelTinkler

There are classical orders in mathematics. But they're pretty obscure, and I doubt anyone will be writing an article on them any time soon. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 29

Changed category

I changed the category from 'Ancient Roman architecture' to 'Architecture', since the classical orders were neither invented by nor limited to the Romans. - Burschik

Moved article

I've moved the article from classical orders to classical order, as we should use the singular in article titles.

"Classical orders" means the orders used in Classical architecture. "Classical order", a characteristic for example of the versification and poetic vision of John Milton, is quite something else. Ideological consistency is a point of dogma rather than a neutral array of ideas. Remember Thoreau's dictum!. --Wetman 22:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Classical orders" is the plural. A quick Google shows that the singular is used far more often to refer to the architectural orders than to the concept (although a link to an article on it would be most welcome!). A search of Britannica, for instance, returns almost thirty uses of "classical order" (many more, incidentally, than the plural), all referring to the architectural concept. Warofdreams 12:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm confident we agree that this article concerns the Classical orders. Individual Wikipedia articles treat the Doric order, the Ionic order, the Corinthian order, even the Tuscan order, and ought to treat the Composite order too. When one is discussing the classical orders as a concept, the natural entry (think of the reader before you think of Wikipedian consistency) is the "Classical orders". Those Google hits simnply reflect the obvious fact that most reference are to an order being used in a particular building, not to the concept, as discussed for example by John Summerson, The Classical Language of Architecture. It was an unnecessary move, that's all. No problem, as long as there's a redirect. --Wetman 17:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This text has been lifted from another source without credit.

"From the first formation of society, order may be traced. When the rigor of seasons first obliged humans to contrive shelter from the inclemency of the weather, we learn that they first planted trees on end, and then laid others across to support a covering. The bands which connected those trees at top and bottom are said to have given rise to the idea of the base and capital of pillars; and from this simple hint originally proceeded the more improved art of architecure."

This text comes directly from Masonic handbooks. Further, it has nothing to do with classical orders qua architecture as it is and should be moved to a discussion of "classical architecture" in terms of later European symbolism. Failing that, it should be cited.

It's an idea fashionable ca 1760-1600. Let's can it. --Wetman 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Modern approaches"

This section is too uncomprehending in toto to select an example. Someone who understands what "modern/Modernist" implies and has read any modern architect's dictum on the orders could easily improve this section. --Wetman 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it, made a start but now reading up.

Also I don't believe the expression 'nonce order' has ever been used except in this article and I'm considering whether it needs to be replaced with a more neutral term. This isn't the right place to invent a new name, if that's what it is. ProfDEH (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

History and cultural/social analysis?

It would be useful to have more information on the history of how these orders originated and became established as canonical, and on any theories as to why they were/are so incredibly conservative. This is the most fascinating aspect of the phenomenon to many casual observers such as myself; these three (or five) styles became (literally) set in stone at the dawn of western civilisation and have persisted ever since with only very minor attempts at modification or expansion. How, and why? The article touches on this by mentioning ideas about how they represent an understood grammar for architectural expression etc., but it would be good to have more.. Spiridens (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The five pillars of ancient Greece have lost their meaning

The five pillars of Ancient Greek society are lost! Originally they stood for the senate, the people, philosophy, science and law, with selected pillars added for favorite gods who were thought to protect these. The discussions of Ancient Greek philosophers centered on their proof. The conclusion was that when the five load bearing pillars of the roman pantheon fall the apocalypse will come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.163.69.209 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Five Orders as Masculine/Matronly/Maidenly

I am by no means an expert in the history of architecture, which is why I'm posting here rather than being bold and editing the page myself. The text of the article says that the various classical orders are associated with various gender aesthetics: Doric (&Tuscan) represents masculinity, Ionic represents matronly femininity, and Corinthian (&Composite) represents maidenly femininity. Good so far. That's certainly how I learned it.

The problem comes when I followed the citation, which doesn't mention gender at all. Perhaps it was edited away? I realize that gender these days is a hot button issue and an easy way to get permabanned now or someday (another good reason why I didn't just revise the section myself, and am not using my account). However, when I started googling around for a good citation to replace the one used, I couldn't find anything that I felt was a Reliable Source that discusses it. The closest thing to something with editorial review was an article that allegedly quoted Vitruvius... and also gave his recommendations for which saints were appropriate for which Order. Which is patently ridiculous since Vitruvius died before Christianity even existed. So no dice there. It's surprising that such a widely quoted idea isn't showing up, and I don't have a translation of Vitruvius handy. Ware's "The American Vignola" was a landmark work, but I just flipped through it, especially Part I where he discusses the Orders, and again no mention.

I'm 90% certain that the Renaissance theorists held these beliefs about classical architecture and gender roles, but I'm hoping someone who knows this stuff better than I can find support for it in the literature. So far, I've come up empty. (If there really isn't any basis; like, if it turned out to be a Victorian fabrication or urban legend, then it's still probably noteworthy enough to include in the article, carefully described and cited as such.) 71.204.40.56 (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There's lots like this on google. Male & female go back to Vitruvius, & no doubt beyond; saints do not. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)