Click Here for Related Buying Guide
When considering materials for the Neo-Classical interior and exterior, it is best to keep in mind the history and intent of the original designers. The Greeks and Romans employed stone and masonry construction, while architects of subsequent centuries utilized indigenous materials to emulate their forefathers. In the late-18th and early-19th centuries in Bath, England, the native yellow-ochre stone was used to create the Neo-Classical crescents. In America, the Greek Revival was ushered with stone and masonry on public buildings, but residential work was often constructed of wood framing with wood siding. Very often they were executed with shiplapped boards, perhaps with some beading to create the impression of stonework.
Several other motifs distinguish the Neo-Classical style. Besides all of those columns, there are Palladian windows, dentil moldings, and Acanthus leaves applied to brackets, corbels, and capitals. The fasces motif appears not infrequently (a column of reeds bound by diagonal cross-banding). Basic geometric shapes -- circle, square, and triangle -- are the building blocks of Classical massings, augmented by graceful "S" and "C" curves. Turnings for balustrades tend to be variations on the familiar ring and vase form.
By the Colonial Revival era, the pretense of stone had been forsaken, except for foundation work and some decorative elements (such as corbels), and standard clapboard and cedar shakes became the siding of choice. Today, artificial siding is often used in place of wood, continuing the evolution. (No comment, except bear in mind that the Greeks didn't have vinyl at their disposal.)
The Classical/Greek Revivals of
the late-18th and early-19th centuries utilized saturated primary
colors of a jewel-like quality. The Colonial Revival of the late-19th
and early-20th centuries softened this look with the paler tertiary
colors. A main reason for this change was the great improvement
in artificial lighting. The early bright colors were often illuminated
with nothing more than candles or oil lamps. By the close of the
19th century, electricity, while not completely reliable and pervasive,
was fast becoming the norm. A room's function often determined
the palette to be chosen. Entrance halls often possessed the most
extreme wall treatments, both in pattern and color. Dining rooms
and libraries tended to be dark and rich. Parlors were lighter
as a general rule. Bedrooms, while seldom if ever seen by those
outside the family, would vary according to the owner's taste,
but were usually lighter in feel.It seemed like a simple enough
question: I was in the offices of Classic Restorations of Watertown,
Mass., a top-shelf architecture, interior-design, and general-contracting
company that specializes in older homes. The firm's president,
architect Peter LaBau, and designer Nina Davis were patiently
answering my questions when I put the query to them: "The
three of us are, in some way, versed in Classical architecture.
When we see a contemporary interpretation that hasn't 'followed
the rules' of the ancient Greeks in terms of scale and proportion,
we find ourselves disconcerted by the 'improper' column widths
or entablature dimensions, etc. Is this discomfort due to our
education, our learned impressions, or is there an instinctual
gravitation towards the 'proper' or Classical proportioning as
dictated by the Greeks? In other words, if some guy in the suburbs
of Atlanta wants to throw a bunch of columns on a ranch house,
who are we to say if he got the proportions right?"
|