A Cautious Pragmatic Amendment to the Vitruvian Paradigm

Abstract

Vitruvius’s convenient firmitas, utilitas, venustas triad has
been employed since the Renaissance to encompass the goals of architec
ture. But these terms can be questioned: they were primarily useful to
Vitruvius in ordering his book and do not encompass all that was at is
sue for him and remains so for us today. Architecture is a discipline that
displays tacit knowledge, where best practice can only be shown, not de
scribed, accounting for the clumsiness of expression for which Vitruvius
is often criticised. I argue that the conventional triad undervalues loca
tion or context and, whereas firmitas and utilitas (suitably expanded)
may be measurable, and styles and even meanings can be discussed, ve
nustas—understood as a demand for beauty in the abstract—is more like
an ethical requirement. We cannot blame Vitruvius for the fact that his
attractive tri-partite framework was adopted by Alberti and continues to
be used. But we can be permitted to think again whether there might be
a more appropriate set of terms that takes better account of the full com
plexity of the practice and interpretation of architecture.