Sullivan proposed (more than once) that the language of architecture (from ancient Egypt until his day) has had three words (or elements): pier, lintel, and arch.
"More subtle, more intricate, more subjective than either pier or lintel, the arch has just so much more of man in it. We may therefore view it both as a triumph over an abyss and as the very crystallization of that abyss itself. It is a form so much against Fate, that Fate, as we say, ever most relentlessly seeks its destruction. Yet it does rise so graciously, floating through the air from abutment to abu tment, that it seems ever, to me , a symbol and epitome of our own ephemeral span." "The arch is, of all constructive forms, the most emotional. It is susceptible in possibility and promise to the uttermost degree of fulfillment that the creative imagination can forecast.--- in all its power it is a form so frail in essence, so gracious, so ethereal, that it must need ever touch the heart attuned to nature's mysteries" And yet, as a structural element, the arch wasn't really needed in Sullivan's new age of steel beam construction, was it ? It's use, ever after, has been strictly decorative (or aesthetic), and rather than a symbol and epitome of span -- isn't its circular shape more important? Especially when, as Sullivan often does, there are circles within circles within circles. ____________________________________________________________ Click to reduce wrinkles & lines. Anti-aging that works, try now. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxU9UO34MOZ4AT3lwlvu0qfzv NmmzTtKaoUx19j8eMlaCPkgKjCaHG/
