EMBLEMS

The reliefs shown above that are carved in stone on the wall of the building at 315 Montgomery Street depict stacks of urns, each with a round shield bearing a rosette in the middle. Although their meaning is obscure, they are probably military trophies. Not the kind that featured armor and weapons,  but urns full of the spoils of battle,  treasure trophies, which were created in the Renaissance to advertise  the wealth so gained..

Although trophies are still awarded in sports and other contests, the display of such trophies on the walls of financial institutions, as was the practice during the Roaring Twenties when this building was designed, has been abandoned in favor of announcing wealth and the security it inspires by means of luxurious materials and monumental scale.

Symbols borrowed from the rituals of fraternal organizations often need explanations, particularly  when the organization has ceased to be active  as was the case with the Order of Odd fellows (IOOF), which was founded in Manchester,  England, in the eighteenth  century as a benevolent secret society. Odd Fellows were not off in the sence of being eccentric.  Rather, they were out of place or far from home. In 1819 the organization spread to the United States where many chapters were  established to help strangers, odd fellows, find companionship and assistance in managing their lives. During the post 1849 Gold Rush in California,  membership boomed. Nearly every town in the region had a building owned by the IOOF, which typically had commercial  uses on the ground floor and a meeting hall for the society on the upper floor. The society rituals were borrowed from those of the Masonic Order and the Rosicrusians; only members were allowed  to participate in them.

As the  terra cotta relief panels on the former IOOF hall at 26 7th Street show, Egyptian esoterica  was a source of symbols. The top of the panel features the all-seeing eye ringed with rays of the sun above the new moon and stars symbolizing enlightenment while perhaps concealing other meanings. The links of chain above clasped hands symbolizes the brotherhood. A tent like those used in the Egyptian deserts occupies the bottom of the panel; its central opening alludes to the passage of the soul to the other world. This image may also refer to an important role of the IOOF, which was to take charge of burying those members who died from home without family ties.

THE NEXT NEW THING?

Contemporary buildings do not display inspirational emblems or symbols. Words have won perhaps because their meaning is more direct, unclouded by artistry. But except for signs projecting from buildings, words take their place in the same plane as walls and do not attract our gaze as we walk the streets.

Moving forward into the virtual world,  it is possible that buildings themselves will be animated.  A new kind of glass has been installed in a few storefront showcase windows in New York’s Manhatten district, which remains opaque until the passersby reach the window’s midpoint whereupon they become translucent to reveal  the contents of the showcase with startling effect.  This strategy might be combined with devices that cause the mannequins to revolve and show what they are wearing while they also speak to the on-lookers to lure them inside the store.

Indeed,  the whole building wall might be animated with a new form of glass that changes its color depending on the intensity of the daylight that strikes it. These transformative  effects might give us the jitters at first, but we would surely adjust to the novelty and enjoy it. Or we might long for the quiet of the printed logos and signs. Who knows!

Any ideas? Reactions?

 

The text is divided into the following chapters:

1. HUMAN FORMS,
2. ANIMAL and BIRD FORMS,
3. HERALDRY and EMBLEMS,
4. PLANT FORMS, and the most decorated features of buildings:
5. ROOFS, COLUMNS, WINDOWS and DOORS.

 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 at 4:02 pm and is filed under Architecture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Comments

1. John Lau says:

   November 3, 2011 at 10:25 am

   Thoroughly enjoyed the posts and I now have an informed and therefore better appreciation of the art form.
2. John Parman says:

   November 3, 2011 at 10:29 am

   This is a great series! I miss ornament.
3. Karl Wanasalja says:

   November 3, 2011 at 10:34 am

   Great articles! After reading all three installments I’m struck, yet again, by how radical a change modernism was/is from millennia of architectural tradition. The legibility of buildings, in the literal and symbolic sense, has been reduced to a subjective, abstract aesthetic response
4. Tom Lease says:

   February 28, 2012 at 3:44 pm

   Sounds cliche, but they don’t make em like they used to. Truly a lost art easily missed if you are not looking out for it. Wonderful representations in word and picture.