Abstract

Post #9: Abstract

The aim of the paper that will serve as a capstone to this blog will be to explore Austin Hall’s relationship with its architect’s eponymous style, Richardsonian Romanesque. I will argue that Austin Hall can be seen as an archetype for this style and its influence, perhaps more so than any other of Richardson’s works. To do so, I will do the following: 1) define and synthesize a definition of Richardsonian Romanesque based upon both Richardson’s contemporaries and more modern critics have understood the style to be; 2) use extensive visual analysis and my own photography of the building’s interior and exterior to demonstrate how the building matches that definition; 3) examine additional Richardson works and attempt to illustrate how they depart from the definition through analysis of critical works about them; and 4) trace the influence or recollection of this style in works done by architects after Richardson’s death, particularly those of his protégés. I will again attempt to show how Austin’s features can be seen as antecedents of so many aspects of post-Richardson Richardsonian Romanesque works.

            Ultimately, the conclusions I draw in this paper will not establish definitively one way or another whether Austin Hall can lay sole claim to the title of most Richardsonian Romanesque. Nevertheless, using secondary source material and visual analysis of other Richardson works, I hope to be able to derive a comprehensive working definition of the style and show how it may be applied to a particular building that I and others feel closely matches this style. While it may be difficult to abstract away Austin’s characteristics in constructing a definition (necessary so that the definition is not tautological and Austin’s archetypal status is not trivial), this challenge will lead me to make headway on questions that are broader than just the description of a single artist’s work and style. Through attention to considerations that are relevant to Austin Hall and the work of HH Richardson, I hope to explore: 1) What makes for a style of art? How can its features be derived from an examination of works that are thought to adhere to this style? Is this question inherently circular, i.e. does a set of works belonging to a style define the style’s features or do the features belong to the style? 2) How can one judge whether an additional work from an artist fits the stylistic that a critic has generated? 3) How can one infer the latter-day influences of a style and how does that better inform an understanding of the style and its scope to begin with? Certainly, none of these questions will be answered in full, but argument that Austin Hall is characteristically Richardsonian Romanesque will necessitate their examination.

Post 8: Description of Display Options

Description:

Constructed in 1883 under the oversight and design of American architect H.H. Richardson, Austin Hall was the first building designated expressly for the use of the Harvard Law. Its vaulted portico, demi-tower, and two-toned sandstone façade mark it as one of Richardson’s signature works– the true epitome of Richardsonian Romanesque. Inside is evident the grandeur– both original and restored– for which it was designed, replete with its most well-known masterpiece, the Ames Courtroom.

Display Options:

            Though Austin Hall is inherently site-specific (it was constructed for a particular location and time), there are a coupe of other options that could have been considered for its “display,” i.e. its location and orientation.

1)   Orientation of the building and internal structure- the main entrance and portico to the building faces away from the law school. Moreover, the main staircase resides not in the tower but in a separate wing. Both of these facts could easily have constructed differently. The tower, with pride of place in its prominent position on the exterior, could have had a matching level of importance on the inside. Likewise, it is not entirely clear today why the grand entrance portico faces a direction that is so divorced from the overall law school environs. That being said, such environs were not the same at the time of Austin’s construction. In fact, the focal point of campus was and to some extent still does reside much to the South. At the same time, however, this revisionary and restorative impulse did in fact get realized in the restoration of the building’s interior and in the rear glass-covered entrance stairway, which destroys the work’s original symmetry on the rear façade. A perhaps more interesting change that Richardson could have accomplished would be to place the main chamber of the building, the Ames courtroom, on the first rather than the second floor.

2)   Location of the building- with the focus of campus so far to the south, why was Austin located outside the Yard? Surely, space existed in the Yard as of 1880 that could have been purposed for Austin. As I wrote in a previous post, it is possible that the University fathers felt placing Austin in its own context would allow for the expansion of a truly separate law school. On the other hand, however, this line of analysis may simply be distorted by our hindsight recognition of the law school’s meteoric rise in the decades that followed Austin’s completion. Regardless of intention, Richardson and his benefactor’s choice of siting for Austin have irrevocably shaped the building’s history and interaction with its surroundings.

           

7. Related Works

#7: Related Works

Three works that are worth examination in relation to Austin Hall are H.H. Richardson’s Sever Hall (Cambridge, MA), Trinity Church (Boston, MA), and New York State Asylum (Buffalo, NY). The first is pertinent due to its status as the other Richardson-designed classroom building on Harvard University’s campus. The second is perhaps Richardson’s most noted work, at least in the Boston area. Finally, the third building represents Richardson’s largest project, completed in collaboration with renowned architect and sometime Richardson collaborator Frederick Law Olmstead.

Sever Hall

Dates of Construction: 1878-1880
Architect: H.H. Richardson (1838-1886)
Location: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Medium: Brick
Style/period: Romanesque Revival (Richardsonian Romanesque)
Dimensions:176 X 74 X 80

            Sever Hall, as one of Harvard College’s classroom buildings (as opposed to the Law school), casts a far less imposing profile on its surrounding quadrangles and installations. It was intended as way for the college to expand its classroom space and was built with a gift from Anne Sever in memoriam of her husband. Possessing less distinct turrets and a smaller entry portico than Austin Hall, Sever could be seen as less characteristically Richardsonian Romanesque. Indeed, the symmetry and regularity of the windows as well as the uniformity of brick coloring allow Sever Hall to recede into near anonymity amongst its Georgian peers, whereas Austin marks a clear break from the traditions of its neighbors. This divergence– the lack of Sever’s distinctness from its neighbors contrasted with Austin’s uniqueness– perhaps reflects the retrospective contexts of their construction, with Austin being the first of its kind and Sever being molded to fit an already existent set of structures. At the same time, its relative lack of ornament and decided monochromatic facade allow it to stand out amongst its fellow Richardson-designed peers, perhaps explaining why it has been named a National Historic Landmark. 

Trinity Church

Dates of Construction: 1872-1877
Architect: H.H. Richardson (1838-1886)
Location: Boston, MA
Medium: Longmeadow Sandstone, Clay, Glass
Style/period: Romanesque Revival (Richardsonian Romanesque)
Dimensions: 211 feet tall.

            While not fully complete until after his death, Trinity Church marks what is probably Richardson’s best-known achievement. Though purposed as a church and not a building of secular education like Austin, Trinity still retains some of the key elements of Richardson’s trademark approach: Longmeadow sandstone and granite, an impressive tower, large porticos, and elaborate, asymmetrical windows. Additionally, the building bears aspects that are modeled after foreign churches, particularly in France and Italy, reflecting Richardson’s training and influence obtained from abroad. Specifically, the Romanesque churches of St. Trophime, France and the Cathedral of Salamanca were key sources. Finally, it should be noted how Trinity’s surrounding buildings remind the viewer both of Richardson’s profound influence on future American architecture (seen in the Boston Public Library, a product of his former assistant) and then how much progress has been made since his day (observed in IM Pei’s Copley Plaza).

New York State Asylum

Dates of Construction: 1870
Architect: H.H. Richardson (1838-1886)
Location: Buffalo, NY
Medium: Brick and Sandstone
Style/period: Romanesque Revival (Richardsonian Romanesque)
Dimensions: Unknown

Constructed complete with 59 acres of grounds to house humanely the State's growing mental health patient population, the Asylum entailed numerous administrative and treatment buildings.  In addition to size, the New York State Asylum is likewise noteworthy for Richardson’s not being the only architect as well as the firm influence of French elements. The fact that it was a team effort means that many of its elements are less distinctly Richardsonian. Large entry porticos are still evident, as is impressive, overbearing fenestration, but the overall shape of the building is much more boxy, without the rounded quality of its outline that is observable in both of Richardson’s Harvard building. Curiously, though, despite the Asylum lack of many of Richardson’s hallmark characteristics, it is still attached to Richardson’s name, perhaps revealing just how important the mere mention of the architect’s name is to the building’s status.