Any historiography of architecture is inherently implicated and incomplete by definition: implicated because it demonstrates the interpretation and curation of examples by the one who writes it, and incomplete because, in this selection, divergent examples often fall outside the "official" timeline. However, the ability to trace forms, their application, and repetition over historical periods separated by centuries is always a good indication of genealogy. This lineage situates examples and broadens repertoire.
Interior of Amalienburg (François de Cuvilliés, interiors: Johann Baptist Zimmermann and Joachim Dietrich, Munich, Germany) © Poupou99 via Wikimedia Commons
Any historiography of architecture is inherently implicated and incomplete by definition: implicated because it demonstrates the interpretation and curation of examples by the one who writes it, and incomplete because, in this selection, divergent examples often fall outside the "official" timeline. However, the ability to trace forms, their application, and repetition over historical periods separated by centuries is always a good indication of genealogy. This lineage situates examples and broadens repertoire.
A historiography of architecture can bridge past-century elements and movements considered 'outdated' with contemporary forms and applications, establishing a nexus of relationships that offer conceptual and design insights. By categorizing specific styles, notable features are emphasized, often resonating with present-day scenarios as suggested by bibliographical sources, which holds even for seemingly distant connections, as exemplified by the Rococo.
