00000212 |
Previous | 212 of 496 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
Ly
CONSTRUCTION. XVI. FORM OF APERTURE. 181
Arabian bath ; perhaps the most beautiful of all forms being
the rose, which has in it the unity of both characters, and
sympathy with that of the source of light itself. It is noticeable, however, that while both the circle and pointed oval are
beautiful window forms, it would be very pain- xLiy
ful to cut either of them in half and connect ^—^
them by vertical lines, as in Fig. XLIV. The
reason is, I believe, that so treated, the upper
arch is not considered as connected with the
lower, and forming an entire figure, but as the ordinary arch
roof of the aperture, and the lower arch as an arch floor,
equally unnecessary and unnatural. Also, the elliptical oval is
generally au unsatisfactory form, because it gives the idea of
useless trouble in building it, though it occurs quaintly and
pleasantly in the former windows of France: I believe it is also
objectionable because it has an indeterminate, slippery look,
like that of a bubble rising through a fluid. It, and all elongated
forms, are still more objectionable placed horizontally, because
this is the weakest position they can structurally have ; that is
to say, less light is admitted, with greater loss of strength to
the building, than by any other form. If admissible anywhere, it is for the sake of variety at the top of the building,
as the flat parallelogram sometimes not ungracefully in Italian
Renaissance.
§ xin. The question of bevelling becomes a little more
complicated in the inlet than the outlook window, because
the mass or quantity of light admitted is often of more consequence than its direction, and often vice versa • and the outlook window is supposed to be approachable, which is far
from being always the case with windows for light, so that
the bevelling which in the outlook window is chiefly to open
range of sight, is in the inlet a means not only of admitting
the light in greater quantity, but of directing it to the spot
on which it is to fall. But, in general, the bevelling of the
one window will, reverse that of the other; for, first, no
natural light will strike on the inlet window from beneath,
unless reflected light, which is (I believe) injurious to the
| Title | The stones of Venice - 1 |
| Creator | Ruskin, John |
| Publisher | J. Wiley |
| Place of Publication | New York |
| Date | 1889 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000212 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | Ly CONSTRUCTION. XVI. FORM OF APERTURE. 181 Arabian bath ; perhaps the most beautiful of all forms being the rose, which has in it the unity of both characters, and sympathy with that of the source of light itself. It is noticeable, however, that while both the circle and pointed oval are beautiful window forms, it would be very pain- xLiy ful to cut either of them in half and connect ^—^ them by vertical lines, as in Fig. XLIV. The reason is, I believe, that so treated, the upper arch is not considered as connected with the lower, and forming an entire figure, but as the ordinary arch roof of the aperture, and the lower arch as an arch floor, equally unnecessary and unnatural. Also, the elliptical oval is generally au unsatisfactory form, because it gives the idea of useless trouble in building it, though it occurs quaintly and pleasantly in the former windows of France: I believe it is also objectionable because it has an indeterminate, slippery look, like that of a bubble rising through a fluid. It, and all elongated forms, are still more objectionable placed horizontally, because this is the weakest position they can structurally have ; that is to say, less light is admitted, with greater loss of strength to the building, than by any other form. If admissible anywhere, it is for the sake of variety at the top of the building, as the flat parallelogram sometimes not ungracefully in Italian Renaissance. § xin. The question of bevelling becomes a little more complicated in the inlet than the outlook window, because the mass or quantity of light admitted is often of more consequence than its direction, and often vice versa • and the outlook window is supposed to be approachable, which is far from being always the case with windows for light, so that the bevelling which in the outlook window is chiefly to open range of sight, is in the inlet a means not only of admitting the light in greater quantity, but of directing it to the spot on which it is to fall. But, in general, the bevelling of the one window will, reverse that of the other; for, first, no natural light will strike on the inlet window from beneath, unless reflected light, which is (I believe) injurious to the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| M |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
| Y |
|
|
|
