A Cautious Pragmatic Amendment to the Vitruvian Paradigm

Vitruvius’s convenient firmitas, utilitas, venustas triad has been employed since the Renaissance to encompass the goals of architecture. But these terms can be questioned: they were primarily useful to Vitruvius in ordering his book and do not encompass all that was at issue for him and remains so for us today. Architecture is a discipline that displays tacit knowledge, where best practice can only be shown, not described, accounting for the clumsiness of expression for which Vitruvius is often criticised. I argue that the conventional triad undervalues location or context and, whereas firmitas and utilitas (suitably expanded) may be measurable, and styles and even meanings can be discussed, venustas—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 complexity of the practice and interpretation of architecture.