A Doric flutings B smooth columns C Doric columns
_The principle of Doric fluting can be seen in the above picture A. The Doric flutes were shallow and always ending in a sharp ridge in contrast to the Ionic flutes that always had a narrow even plane between the flutes. The meaning of the fluting has aroused debate among scholars. Theories about their meaning vary sharply. The most important ones seem to be that they emphasize the verticality or roundness of the column or its load-bearing nature, or that they lift the column out of the stone wall behind. Moreover, it has been suggested that the intention has been to create a contrapuntal contrast between the flutes and the round form of the column, or to break the uniformity of the surfaces, or to give a more ceremonial look to the temple.
All these suggestions can be seen as examples of confusing the means and goals in architecture. For instance, the separation of the column from its background is, of course, only one of architecture’s innumerable means by which a certain aesthetic effect may be achieved. The mere recognition of such a means does not say anything about, why especially this means has been used. It would not, even if the recognition had been correct, and this is certainly not always the case when the recognition is generally often based on an outwardly inspection while the basis of this inspection is our own way of seeing architecture. The goal of using different means in architecture can only be a certain overall impression of the whole building. Until a specific means can be seen as a tool to achieve this final goal, it is not understood at all. Therefore, even the nature of the Doric flutings has to be explained as a part of the total architectural intention behind the Doric temple in general.
To be able to reach the kernel of the question, we must compare the visual effects of a fluted and a smooth column. On the smooth column light causes part of every column to be in shade whilst the other part is lighted, and thus the separateness of every column is emphasized. (Picture B) In the Ionic column the flutes are comparatively dense; they are deep and always end with a narrow plain between the flutes. The grooves appear dark because of their deepness, whilst the even plains are either lighted or in shadow. In this sense, the impression of the Ionic column reminds that of a smooth column. Therefore, the roundness of the column is clearly emphasized by both of them, although to a lesser extent by the Ionic column. In the Doric column the flutes are shallower and broader; the ridge, on the other hand, is sharp and thin. (Picture C) Because of the shallowness of the flutes, light on the surface is not able to create sharp changes of light and shadow; all changes are smooth and gradual. One thing, however, it clearly does, it lifts the sharp edges up extremely strongly as borders of light and shadow, thus making the colonnade look like a uniform row of thin, vertical lines.
What then, is the meaning of this feature for the overall impression of the temple as a whole? It is justified to state that this factor, as well as all the other articulations of the Doric order, is meant to form the temple into a coherent, sculptural whole, and gather the columns, which otherwise would form a beating rhythm, into a unified plastic body, a unity in plurality. It was just another means to overcome the contradiction of creating a unity out of many, so that the temple could fulfill its task as the embodiment of the polis.
Actually, the Greek architects were only following an ancient rule of architectural composition known for all architects for centuries, obviously even for millennia. If one wants to compose a unified totality out of many components, one has to give them all a unifying common surface structure and thus make the borders of the units to fade into the totality of this structure. There is absolutely no reason to look for some other more or less mysterious and fanciful explanations since this basic age-old rule works perfectly well here.
All these suggestions can be seen as examples of confusing the means and goals in architecture. For instance, the separation of the column from its background is, of course, only one of architecture’s innumerable means by which a certain aesthetic effect may be achieved. The mere recognition of such a means does not say anything about, why especially this means has been used. It would not, even if the recognition had been correct, and this is certainly not always the case when the recognition is generally often based on an outwardly inspection while the basis of this inspection is our own way of seeing architecture. The goal of using different means in architecture can only be a certain overall impression of the whole building. Until a specific means can be seen as a tool to achieve this final goal, it is not understood at all. Therefore, even the nature of the Doric flutings has to be explained as a part of the total architectural intention behind the Doric temple in general.
To be able to reach the kernel of the question, we must compare the visual effects of a fluted and a smooth column. On the smooth column light causes part of every column to be in shade whilst the other part is lighted, and thus the separateness of every column is emphasized. (Picture B) In the Ionic column the flutes are comparatively dense; they are deep and always end with a narrow plain between the flutes. The grooves appear dark because of their deepness, whilst the even plains are either lighted or in shadow. In this sense, the impression of the Ionic column reminds that of a smooth column. Therefore, the roundness of the column is clearly emphasized by both of them, although to a lesser extent by the Ionic column. In the Doric column the flutes are shallower and broader; the ridge, on the other hand, is sharp and thin. (Picture C) Because of the shallowness of the flutes, light on the surface is not able to create sharp changes of light and shadow; all changes are smooth and gradual. One thing, however, it clearly does, it lifts the sharp edges up extremely strongly as borders of light and shadow, thus making the colonnade look like a uniform row of thin, vertical lines.
What then, is the meaning of this feature for the overall impression of the temple as a whole? It is justified to state that this factor, as well as all the other articulations of the Doric order, is meant to form the temple into a coherent, sculptural whole, and gather the columns, which otherwise would form a beating rhythm, into a unified plastic body, a unity in plurality. It was just another means to overcome the contradiction of creating a unity out of many, so that the temple could fulfill its task as the embodiment of the polis.
Actually, the Greek architects were only following an ancient rule of architectural composition known for all architects for centuries, obviously even for millennia. If one wants to compose a unified totality out of many components, one has to give them all a unifying common surface structure and thus make the borders of the units to fade into the totality of this structure. There is absolutely no reason to look for some other more or less mysterious and fanciful explanations since this basic age-old rule works perfectly well here.
D. Ionic bases E. Ionic capitals
_It is equally obvious that some further particularly Doric features can be explained similarly. The Doric column always rises directly from the stylobate, whereas there always was a base under the Ionic one. (Pictures C and D) Even this feature is so insistent that there simply must be a certain positive reason for it. Now, let us take a look at both the Doric and Ionian colonnades and compare the visual effects caused by this difference. Again, there can be only one explanation: the base causes the columns to look more separated emphasizing their roundness and destroying accordingly in their part the unity of the temple. Therefore, it was never used in Doric temples.
This same explanation can even be used for the nature of the capital. The volutes of the Ionic capital again emphasize the separateness of every column, whereas the Doric capital is the smoothest imaginable way of connecting the round, tapering, and fluted column and the architrave without breaking the overall unity of the temple. (Pictures C and E) Another factor confirming this theory is the fact that whenever Ionian or Corinthian columns were used in Doric temples, they are always found in the interior, never in the outside colonnade. All these features of the Doric temple are so insistent and so well in accordance with the overall pursuit toward one goal only, to make the temple into a unified sculptural body although composed of many, in a word, to make it a unity in plurality that it cannot be a mere coincidence.
This same explanation can even be used for the nature of the capital. The volutes of the Ionic capital again emphasize the separateness of every column, whereas the Doric capital is the smoothest imaginable way of connecting the round, tapering, and fluted column and the architrave without breaking the overall unity of the temple. (Pictures C and E) Another factor confirming this theory is the fact that whenever Ionian or Corinthian columns were used in Doric temples, they are always found in the interior, never in the outside colonnade. All these features of the Doric temple are so insistent and so well in accordance with the overall pursuit toward one goal only, to make the temple into a unified sculptural body although composed of many, in a word, to make it a unity in plurality that it cannot be a mere coincidence.