Setting the stage for neoclassical architecture

The story and meanings behind Rococo and Baroque  architecture

Nothing in existence simply “happens.” The creation of an entity requires stimulation, conception, and nurturing – whether it be an offspring, an event, or a simple idea. The increased popularity of neoclassical architecture in the mid 18th century did not occur because of a sudden societal nostalgia to revive the architecture of classical Greece and Rome. Certainly that is part of the equation, but more importantly, architectural movements are largely provoked by disenchantment with the mundane present. Neoclassical style was a reaction against the paradigms of the Renaissance architecture – chiefly, Rococo and Baroque architecture. It was these styles that laid the fertile foundations for neoclassicism to thrive.

Likewise, the Baroque architecture that largely defined European architecture in the 17th century was a reflection and affirmation of the times. Begun in Italy, Baroque style sought to extend upon the designs of the renaissance. However, the development of the Baroque architecture was largely dictated by the Catholic Church. During this period of history, the Catholic Church was being challenged by the protestant reformation.  This style of architecture was an attempt to combine modesty while asserting its continued influence and pomp; a combination of appealing to the pathos of the common Christian through emotional imagery in its interior, while maintaining an opulence and extravagance that made the Church an imposing presence on its exterior. Defining characteristics of Baroque style focus on a concern for color and light, splendor through high rise ceilings and paintings, and on allusions to the absolutist power of the Church. Though it started in Italy, the Baroque architecture spread whichever way that required the Church to exert its presence, predominantly in Europe and in Latin America. Even today monuments and Churches remain from this architectural movement and continue to be a source of fascination and attention, from the Abbey of St. Gallen in Switzerland to the Igreja São Francisco de Assis in Brazil.  To a degree, neoclassical style was a secular response and outgrowth of the Baroque movement. It, like baroque, took elements of Classical Renaissance architecture with an imposing and classical exterior. The difference, however, lay in its lack of focus on religion iconography and its belief in restraint in design, which critics felt baroque lacked. “Less is more” was the philosophy of neoclassicists.

Rococo architecture, by contrast, developed in France in the early 18th century and used lighter colors to those used by baroque architects as a means to express the frivolity and joy of the times. In this light, it may be interpreted that baroque emphasized other worldly elements, while rococo architecture was a break from that to accentuate this existence. The Rococo style, however, focused particular attention to the interior design of buildings. The Rococo style sought to display individual rooms as art itself, and consequently paintings were prevalent and furniture was intentionally highlighted as its own lavish form of art. Despite not being entirely contradictory, rococo behaved as a critical response to the more modest elements and imagery portrayed in Baroque style. Nonetheless, Rococo style was more antithetical to neoclassicism insofar that it exemplified the frivolity and excess that neoclassicism sought to remove itself from. The interior of neoclassical architecture is not uniform, but it was developed in order to prevent the degeneracy of art that it viewed rococo as representing.

In this way, neoclassicism was a strong criticism of both movements. However, it is only because of their viewed weaknesses that allowed neoclassical architecture to develop and grow. In this way, within the heart of neoclassicism lie both rococo and baroque architecture.