Proportion

Definition

The doctrine that architectural harmony is achieved — and made demonstrable — through simple numerical ratios governing the relations of a building's parts to each other and to the whole. In the Renaissance version Summerson condenses: "The purpose of proportion is to establish harmony throughout a structure – a harmony which is made comprehensible either by the conspicuous use of one or more of the orders as dominant components or else simply by the use of dimensions involving the repetition of simple ratios." Proportion is thus the mathematical ground of the classical claim that architecture's aim is "a demonstrable harmony of parts," and the orders are "in themselves demonstrations of harmonious composition."

Summerson's two cautions frame the concept's limits:

On the doctrine itself: "A vast amount of pretentious nonsense has been written about proportion."
On its efficacy: "To what extent rational systems of this kind do produce effects which eye and mind can consciously apprehend I am extremely doubtful. I have a feeling that the real point of such systems is simply that their users (who are mostly their authors) need them; that there are types of extremely fertile, inventive mind which need the tough inexorable discipline of such systems to correct and at the same time stimulate invention." Such systems "rarely survive their authors and users and the next man of fertile genius invents his own."

Key Instances

Renaissance ratio theory — harmony "analogous to musical harmony"; arithmetically simple, mutually related ratios.
Le Corbusier's tracés régulateurs — "lines of control" re-assuming "a kind of control which… belongs essentially to the Renaissance and was fundamental to the work both of Alberti and of Palladio"; applied from his first Perret-style house (1916) onward.
Le Corbusier's Modulor (1950) — "a system of space-notation" fusing "module" and section d'or (golden section), scaled from the human body to town planning; Summerson judges that "interest in it has rather receded" and that its real importance was "as part of its author's mental furniture — enabling him to embark on projects as wildly original… as his chapel at Ronchamp… always secure in his complete grasp of rational procedure."

A domestic, perceptual counter-tradition runs parallel to the ratio doctrine, supplied by Elsie de Wolfe's decorating method (1913): proportion without computation, as placement and trained perception — "It is much more important that the wall openings, windows, doors, and fireplaces should be in the right place and should balance one another than that there should be expensive and extravagant hangings and carpets" (p. 82), where "balance" of openings outranks any upholstery expenditure, and proportion is what "all of us… can train our eyes to recognize good and bad" (p. 83) — no "technical knowledge of architecture" required. De Wolfe's humility before the doctrine — "I grant you we may never fully appreciate the full balance of proportion" (p. 83) — reads as the domestic-scale counterpart to Summerson's "pretentious nonsense" caution: where the ratio systems are their authors' "tough inexorable discipline," her proportion is the eye trained by use.

Key Thinkers

summerson-john — the definition of classical proportion, the "pretentious nonsense" warning, and the psychological-functional reading of proportional systems.
le-corbusier — the twentieth century's great systematizer: tracés régulateurs, Purism's "mathematical discipline," the Modulor.
Alberti and Palladio — the Renaissance exemplars of control by ratio (per Summerson's account).
Elsie de Wolfe — the domestic counter-tradition: proportion as balance of wall openings and the trained eye, placed second to suitability and accompanied by simplicity (1913).
Edith Wharton & Ogden Codman Jr — proportion's constitutive role in style, the doctrine's strongest statement in the wiki's record (1898/2006): "the essence of a style lies not in its use of ornament, but in its handling of proportion"; "Structure conditions ornament, not ornament structure"; "decoration is always subservient to proportion… The less cannot include the greater" (p. 388) — proportion as what a style is, ornament as what it merely wears; "The essence of the great styles lay in proportion and the science of proportion is not to be acquired in a day" (p. 388); and conformity redefined as proportional acceptance: "To conform to a style, then, is to accept those rules of proportion which the artistic experience of centuries has established as the best" (p. 389).

beauty — proportion as the classical answer to what makes beauty objective ("demonstrable" harmony vs. Kantian disinterested judgment).
classical-orders — the orders as built demonstrations of proportional harmony.
architectural-language — proportion as the grammar's deep structure.
primitive-hut — Laugier's rival grounding of truth in construction rather than ratio.
modernism — rational procedure as classicism's "last, and certainly not the least legacy" to modern architecture.

Source Support

Sources in the wiki that discuss this concept:

The Historical Tradition (Wharton & Codman 1898/2006) — the concept's constitutive role in style, the doctrine's most absolute statement in the wiki's record: "the essence of a style lies not in its use of ornament, but in its handling of proportion. Structure conditions ornament, not ornament structure" (p. 388); the demonstration — surface Louis XV/XVI ornament on unsuitably proportioned openings "would not represent either of those styles," while a room "constructed according to the laws of proportion accepted in one or the other of those periods" keeps its style even under "a surface application of decorative detail widely different in character, – say Romanesque or Gothic" (p. 388); the subordination formula — "decoration is always subservient to proportion; and a room, whatever its decoration may be, must represent the style to which its proportions belong. The less cannot include the greater" (p. 388); and the epistemic note that people distinguish styles "usually by ornamental details, rather than by proportion" (p. 388), with "the science of proportion" acquirable only slowly ("not to be acquired in a day," p. 388). Where Summerson doubts the eye apprehends ratios and de Wolfe trains it by use, Wharton & Codman make proportion the definitional ground of style itself — the doctrine's 1898 form, and the wiki's earliest statement that proportion outranks ornament. See style, the-double-test, rhythm-and-logic.
The Classical Language of Architecture — ch. 1 (the Renaissance concept of proportion) and ch. 6 (tracés régulateurs, the Modulor, and the "users need them" thesis).
Suitability, Simplicity and Proportion (de Wolfe 1913/2006) — the domestic, perceptual counter-tradition: "the wall openings, windows, doors, and fireplaces… in the right place… and balance one another" over "expensive and extravagant hangings and carpets" (p. 82); proportion as the trained eye, learnable without "technical knowledge of architecture" (pp. 83–84); the humility clause "we may never fully appreciate the full balance of proportion" (p. 83).
Ornament and Order (Soulillou 2002/2006) — the political reading of proportion's formal vocabulary: symmetry and repetition as the order-giving devices through which ornamental display is contained in "a more or less defined grid system (grille ou maillage)" (p. 315) — and as neither ornament's necessities nor neutral compositional virtues: "To reveal itself, ornament has no need of symmetry and repetition, which form specific modalities of appearance, related to power in accordance with the double orientation of rationality and economy. Order, through the ornament, gives itself an air of symmetry and repetition. This signifies simply that it takes the path of least resistance, consistent with the objectives of power" (p. 315). On this reading the classical proportion doctrine and its descendants are order's formal self-presentation — "an air of" harmony — the grid as the containment of ornament's chaos (see repetition, call-to-order).
Why Architecture Matters (Goldberger 2009) — the Golden Section as the classical device of visual pleasure (p. 12); Alberti's proportionate relations and the 'demonstrable harmony of parts'; and Arnheim's balance of horizontal and vertical, weight and lightness, as the perceptual ground of proportion (pp. 83–84).
source-notes/taylor-2006-a-roam-of-ones-own

Open Questions

If proportional systems "rarely survive their authors," is proportion a property of buildings at all — or a property of design processes?
Summerson doubts the eye apprehends ratios: is the "demonstrable harmony of parts" perceptible, or is its demonstrability entirely discursive?
Does parametric and computational design constitute a new proportional rationalism — and would Summerson's "users need them" thesis apply to algorithmic control?
De Wolfe's proportion is positional (openings in the right place) and perceptual (the trained eye) rather than numerical — does her domestic counter-tradition escape Summerson's dismissal (no system, no "pretentious nonsense"), or confirm it (proportion as what each user needs for their own scale of practice)?
Soulillou reads symmetry and repetition as "the path of least resistance, consistent with the objectives of power" (p. 315) — order giving itself "an air of symmetry." Does this political reading dissolve the classical doctrine's truth-claim (harmony as "demonstrable"), or does it explain the doctrine's persistence better than the doctrine does: the ratio systems as the discipline's reproducible presentation of order? Compare Summerson's "users need them" thesis — is the need rational or political?