Palladianism

[kinsella]

My brother is trying to complete his architecture dissertation, the subject of which is Andrea Palladio and the architectural style to which he gave his name - "Palladianism," and would like to source any negative criticism of this style. If anyone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated. It's hard to get good detailed negative critique of Palladianism as it is so ubiquitous, but anyway........

(I was going to start this thread in the student section but thought it may not be bad to have a Palladian thread in the World Architecture section)

Thanks!

[spoil_sport]

Negaive criticism of palladio? Surley not. Palladio is a very vague topic for a dissertation, does he have an angle? Is there not some big Palladio exhibition happening in London at the mo?
As this is architecture, I think the best criticism is more architecture, in this case I would compare and contrast with an example of "anti-palladin" architecture, ie (and bearing in mind I am using a very broad brush) would look at baroque and po-mo; for example 16th C French architecture, where the public architecture was concerned with palladian ideas, but the private realm was baroque inflenced.
Also good sources might be historical documents, pieces written by architect who would have practiced at the time and just after neo-palladianism in England and the inevitable backlash, and reaction against any prevelant style. Perhaps Robert Adams might have had some thoughts on the matter.

[Paul Clerkin]

"Palladio was passé in his own time": guest writer Francis Terry reassesses the master.
http://www.hughpearman.com/2009/04.html

[strandstudio]

Terrys critique rather misses the point, focussing as it does on the stylistic side of palladios legacy. What is interesting about his work is its formal power, the manipulation of plan and section, and the buildings relationship with the landscape. The exhibition and visiting the buildings brings this home.
I think that an interesting thesis on palladio are the 'lies' he told in the drawings of his buildings that he included in the 4 books. To take Villa rotunda as an example he published a perfect square plan, and gave no information on the relationship with the landscape. The building however is much richer, sitting asymetrically on a brick plinth that is carved to create ancillary acomodation. The plan of the house is tweaked to give a hierarchy to the internal axes.... I could go on but there is something in the removal of complexity and contradition to produce an easily dissiminable polemic that echoes continually throughout architecture. (corbusier anyone?) perhaps this could be a way to take his study forward.