Presentation on Palladio's Theatre

Palladio Presentation: The Teatro Olimpico, Vicenza

Approach
Accademia Olimpico
History of theatre
Design of the Teatro Olimpico
Authorship
Conclusion

History of Accademia Olimpico

*Founded 1555
*Private academy, many existed in Renaissance.
*Partly social, partly concerned with ‘humanistic pursuits’ (Boucher)
*Not restricted to aristocrats, different people could mix
*Palladio was member, prob through influence of Barbaro. This is one reason why he was chosen & interest in antiquity.
*Produced plays – modern and ancient
*Had constructed temporary stage but wanted a permanent site 1579
*Petitioned city council, were given derelict building in rather run down area of Vicenza – idea of ‘upgrading’ this part of the city
*1580 project was underway & plans were “well underway by the time of Pall’s death in August of that year” (Boucher)

History of theatre design
Early theatre designs

*Theatre in Ren. Italy moved from the street and into palaces (permanent structures). A move to permanent theatres was inevitable.
*Performances are noted at Ferrara, Rome and Mantua in late 15th early 16thC.
*1531 – permanent theatre at Ferrara.
* Pevsner – “at the time of the Olimpico Venice already had two privately built public theatres” with “semi-eliptical auditoria”

Palladio’s early temporary designs

*Palladio designed other, temporary theatres – mentioned in Vasari

Quattro Libri – no mention, later volumes were intended

* Info. on theatres is not included, it is believed he was to deal with this and other issues such as baths in a later volume, which obviously never appeared.
* Hard to gauge how we can look at the theatre in relation to his theories. What would be an apt place to look for clues about how he would construct a theatre?

Other treatises - What Serlio, Alberti and Vitruvius have to say

*More detail will be entered into further on.
*Pevsner gives a good summary in his A History of Building Types as follows:
*Alberti – theatre should have semicircular auditorium with colonnade around the top. The stage should be an architectural set piece with rows of columns one above the other ‘ex domum imitatione’ (in imitation of a house). P. Warns that “to describe is not the same as to resuscitate” – highlighting problems of creating a building from a description.
*Filarete “Of theatres he writes laconically: I don’t know what they looked like nor what end they served”
*Cesariano’s illustrated Vitruvius 1521 includes drawings but Pevsner seems to think they are problematic.
*Vitruvius includes a fair amount about theatres and mentions a lot about acoustics in the theatre, which Alberti dismisses in his DRA as being a waste of time to attempt to go into (problems with translation or grappling with complex subject?). Stage – frons scaena with 3 doors. Periaktoi - 3 types of scene for tragic, comic & satiric, can be rotated.
*Francesco di Giorgio includes theatre but Pevsner says he is not to be taken too seriously for some reason. Shows elevations of Roman theatres.
*Serlio describes and illustrates Roman remains of theatres HANDOUT and it is while he was writing that theatres went from being temporary to permanent structures.
*Magagnato – Alberti & Serlio contributed to a new type of theatre that created a “setting that is naturalistically as well as rationally conceived”. Also helped by perspective painting and later scenery HANDOUT.

Other sources - Palladio’s study of Roman theatres HANDOUT

*The Berga theatre at Vicenza
*Theatre at Pola
*Theatre at Verona

Palladio would have had enough information to be able to attempt this feat.

Design of Teatro Olimpico

Overall design

*Plan – akin to the plans of Roman theatres HANDOUT
* Point out different parts and their function: frons scaena (setting and entrance/exit), proscenium (stage), orchestra (Greek = chorus, Roman = Senators), auditorium (seating), colonnade (protection from elements and acoustics)
*Vit. points out differences between Greek and Roman theatre designs – divide orchestra into squares & equilateral triangles to indicate division of different parts of the auditorium.
* Pall. doesn’t work in this way. Probably due to constraints of space. Had to widen the angle and HANDOUT entire auditorium can be divided into equilateral triangles. Referencing Vitruvius in as much as he can?
*Lines relate – first architrave with top of seating, bottom of colonnade etc.
*Audience had to enter where colonnade is and then go down & through to auditorium. Viewpoint is important in Pall’s architecture. Impressive vista.

Frons scaena

*Much is made of this part of the design by scholars. Magagnato: the “key element” that “co-ordinates the working out of his composition” and is not just used as a framing device.
*Intercolumniation, three levels, 3 openings, perspective scenes behind. Definitely not in imitation of a house.
*Ackerman and Magagnato state Pall’s misreading of Vit – “the scenery should not be in the proscenium openings, or behind them, as in the Teatro Olimpico, but alongside them” (Ack). However, Mag. had previously claimed that Pall would have been aided by Barbaro and Cornaro in his understanding of Vit.
*This is confounding, since it is also made quite clear in Alberti’s DRA that the central opening should actually be made to look like the door of a palace, it should not be open. Are we to read it as intentional?
*HANDOUT – it had been known for people to construct triumphal arches for festivals and put scenery in the openings.
*Appears like a triumphal arch HANDOUT. However, architrave not in correct place in relation to central arch.
*Definite interest in the articulation of the walls and the interplay of light and dark – like Il Redentore and San Giorgio Maggiore
*Incredibly adorned. Scholars relate this to his later style. If we think of the Palazzo Chiericati for example. Magagnato: old age is reason, slightly implies senility!

Statuary
*Niches on frons scaena – the labours of Hercules and victory of virtue over vice. Pall. may have wanted to make these female, allegorical figures. The end result = victory of intellect and humanity over base, animal behaviour. Apt for an intellectual undertaking, encompasses classical themes.
*Colonnade = figures from the accademia - Emphasises the importance of intellect, humanism and humanity again.
*Monumentality and a place in history.
*HANDOUT statues in line with columns ala detail in Pall’s study of theatre at Verona. The statues are quite titanic in comparison with the other features esp. columns. Height, impressive.
*What is the point of the colonnade? In Vitruvius one reason is for acoustics but Palladio does not appear to employ any other Vit. ideas on acoustics. Not needed for protection from elements. Tradition (wouldn’t look like ancient theatres without), cohesion in design & extended height.

Intentions

*Mag. argues, Palladio’s main concern and problem was primarily the arrangement of space in terms of the relationship of auditorium to stage or audience to actor.
*Ancient theatre had been more organic in this break but Renaissance theatres tended to designate very separate spaces. Also related to segregation of nobility from lower classes. Apparently, according to M., this was not a concern in the TO, or indeed in Vicenza, where there wasn’t such an interest in stringent social boundaries. “No such need was felt…where the theatre was built for a society of equals, and for humanistic spectacles”.

Similar and different features to established ideas
* Similar to drawings of ancient theatres
* Vitruvius – four equilateral triangles in Roman theatre orchestra. Like Vit’s diagram of Roman, not Greek. Pall’s entire auditorium incorporates the triangles (Owing to constraints or misinterpretation?).
*Palladio was reacting against firmly established tradition – Magagnato. Theatre moved more towards spectacle and to segregation in terms of class.
What was the point?
* Humanist ideals
* Recreation of antique Roman theatre type

Authorship
Palladio’s death 1880
Scamozzi’s involvement – widening of entrances, perspective scenery and viewpoint/vista.

*HANDOUT – drawings would indicate that end result wasn’t original intention. M. says that Pall. was considering first performance – pastoral, don’t need elaborate vista (Unlikely, as I think would be short sighted of Pall. to design only for one performance!).
*Also, Scam. was more interested in impressive perspective scenes.
*Mag. Notes: it somewhat ruins Pall.s harmonies. The original design looks more convincingly like “ex domum imitatione” .

Conclusion - How successful?
Not used very much for a long time

*Ackerman observes, no other early theatres survive. The AO survived into the 18th C, this combined with Pall’s fame could be big part of why the TO survives.

Not very practical for actors or audience - uncomfortable
Frons scenae limits what can be performed – more suitable for ancient theatre, which had specific types of play they performed and didn’t deviate from.

*Ackerman and Magagnato note - In contemporary theatre there was more of an interest in scenery and Palladio was a little too ‘archaeological’ and architectural in his interests and emphasis.
*A little overwhelming – does not leave much room for additions. Theatre lecturer – “you know you’ve been to see a bad play if the best thing about it is the stage set”. Perhaps there would be too much of a competition between the setting and the performance.

Perhaps the theatre (as an institution) either wasn’t ready for such an archaeological statement or it had out evolved ancient theatre types (anachronistic)
* Perhaps the world isn’t really sympathetic to transporting things directly from the past without integration into modern/contemporary culture
* People had eventually combined classical temple architecture and churches but gradually, same with villas/palazzi and the classical language
* M. argues that another type of theatre had evolved before Pall. and this was more congenial to contemporary needs. Rectangular hall with proscenium arch – more versatile for different types of performance and spectacle.
More practical or economical solutions?
*Is it viable to have a theatre that is only suited to a limited and limiting type of theatre?
3 descendants – Scamozzi, Sabbioneta; Aleotti, Parma; Inigo Jones, drawings. *These are all variations on Pall. All have problems with how to combine the proscenium and auditorium (Magagnato).
An appropriate note to end career on but a paradox
* The most suitable commission for executing a truly classical building type
* Actually the least suitable for usefulness because it is an anachronism – possibly ends up being one of the least successful commissions.