Geoffrey Scott’s The Architecture of Humanism offers a compelling critique of modernist architecture by exploring the philosophical underpinnings of architectural aesthetics. First published in the second decade of the twentieth century, Scott’s work stands as a seminal text in architectural theory, particularly for its robust opposition to the emergent modernist movement.
Scott’s analysis hinges on what he identifies as “fallacies” in architectural theory—misconceptions that he believed were increasingly gaining influence in his time. His book is particularly relevant in understanding the intellectual currents that shaped modernist architecture and the ideological battles that defined the early 20th-century architectural landscape.
At the core of Scott’s critique is what he refers to as the “romantic fallacy.” This fallacy, according to Scott, is the tendency to evaluate architectural works based solely on the ideas and associations they evoke, rather than their formal, aesthetic qualities. Scott argues that this approach dismisses the intrinsic aesthetic value of architecture, focusing instead on external meanings and concepts. This perspective, Scott contends, is deeply flawed because it neglects the importance of visual and formal elements, such as shapes, colors, and their combinations, which are essential to the appreciation of architectural beauty.
Scott extends his critique by identifying several other fallacies, all of which he sees as variations of the romantic fallacy. These include the “mechanical fallacy,” which posits that our understanding of a building’s structure influences our aesthetic reaction to it; the “ethical fallacy,” which replaces aesthetic evaluation with ethical considerations; and the “biological fallacy,” which evaluates architecture based on its historical context and appropriateness to its time. For Scott, these fallacies collectively undermine the appreciation of architecture as an art form by prioritizing intellectual and moral considerations over aesthetic ones.
Scott’s opposition to the romantic fallacy aligns him with a long-standing formalist tradition in architectural theory, one that can be traced back to Renaissance figures like Leon Battista Alberti. Alberti defined beauty as arising purely from the relationship between visual forms, independent of any associations these forms might evoke. This formalist perspective, which emphasizes the intrinsic aesthetic qualities of architecture, was later echoed by architects and theorists during the Renaissance and Baroque periods, including Andrea Palladio and Guarino Guarini.
Scott’s own formulation of aesthetic formalism draws heavily on Immanuel Kant’s aesthetic theories, particularly the idea that beauty is rooted in the formal qualities of an object, rather than in any external ideas or purposes it might serve. At the time Scott wrote his book, this formalist perspective was well-established in architectural theory and was reflected in contemporary models of architectural education, which emphasized visuality, formal composition, and the development of high-level graphical skills in students and future architects.
In The Architecture of Humanism, Geoffrey Scott offers a rigorous defense of architectural formalism against the intellectual trends of his time. His critique of the romantic fallacy and its related misconceptions remains relevant today, serving as a reminder of the importance of appreciating architecture as an art form that is defined, first and foremost, by its visual and formal qualities.
What’s your take on these fallacy in our contemporary architecture ?
