SYSTEMATIC WIN-WIN PRODUCTION STRATEGY, PHILOSOPHY AND MANAGEMENT

By
Published by

SYSTEMATIC WIN-WIN PRODUCTION STRATEGY, PHILOSOPHY AND MANAGEMENT Darrell Mann Director, Systematic Innovation, Bristol, UK Phone: +44 (1275) 337500 Email: Simon Dewulf Director, CREAX nv, Ieper, Belgium Phone: +32 (57) 229480 E-mail: Abstract 1500 person years of systematic innovation research has shown that the strongest solutions and ideas are the ones in which the problem or opportunity owner has successfully challenged the conflicts and trade-offs that others have assumed to be fundamental.
  • acceptable values of product match to fashion demands versus production commitment time
  • inventive strategies at a later stage
  • benefits of win-win
  • systematic innovation
  • inventive strategies
  • contradiction
  • simulation of hypothetical conflict scenarios
  • solutions
  • production
  • business
Published : Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Reading/s : 57
Origin : vanderbilt.edu
Number of pages: 32
See more See less

1

Shifting Styles: The Greek Architectural Orders in the Early Classical Period

The Roman architect Vitruvius provides much of the information preserved from
antiquity on the Greek architectural orders. His treatise, known as The Ten Books on
stArchitecture, was written in the late 1 c. B.C.E. but drew on Greek sources. Since its
th“rediscovery” in the 15 c. Vitruvius‟ text has held considerable authority and has, in
fact, become the basis for modern views on ancient architecture. Particularly important
for this paper are his statements concerning the origins of the Doric and Ionic orders,
from which we derive our own understanding of their use, distribution, and significance.

SLIDE: DORIC AND IONIC ORDERS
According to Vitruvius, the Greeks developed two systems, or what we refer to as
orders, of architecture. Doric is characterized as having a heavy, fluted column shaft
without a base, a rounded capital, and a frieze consisting of an alternation of triglyphs
and metopes. Ionic columns rest on a base, have a slenderer but also fluted shaft, and
terminate in a capital with a rounded central element (echinus) framed by volutes.

SLIDE: MAP
Vitruvius tells us that the orders originated in separate parts of the Greek world and at
a very early time. He attributes the initial use of the Doric order to Doros, the leader of
the Dorian Greek tribe, for a temple in the Sanctuary of Hera at Argos, which is located
in mainland Greece. Later, with the migration of Ionians to the coast of Asia Minor, the
style was transplanted there and was subsequently replaced by Ionic for construction of
the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos. 2


Vitruvius‟ chronology is vague and even contradictory, but his association of the two
orders with different geographical regions is generally supported by the archaeological
evidence. That is, the Doric order is typically used in mainland Greece, although it is
also adopted in southern Italy and Sicily. The Ionic order is characteristic of Asia Minor
but it may have appeared even earlier in the Aegean Islands.

During the Early Classical period (ca. 480-450 B.C.E.), however, a major change
occurred in the geographical distribution of the architectural orders in the area sometimes
referred to as Old Greece. The Cyclades, one of the originators of the Ionic order, moved
exclusively to Doric. Athens, which had previously employed the Doric order
characteristic of mainland Greece, began to use Ionic forms for its buildings, leading in
the Classical period to the creation of its own distinctive Attic-Ionic style. My paper
examines this shift in styles and the possible reasons for it by focusing on the most
prominent representatives of the new traditions, first in the Cyclades and then in Athens.

SLIDE: GREAT TEMPLE OF APOLLO
th During the second quarter of the 5 c. B.C., construction was initiated on the Great
Temple of Apollo on Delos, although it was only finished in the last quarter of the fourth
century. In contrast to earlier traditions in the Cycladic Islands, the temple was built in
Doric style. In his publication of the building, Fernand Courby argued that the temple had
1been planned from the beginning as Doric, although with certain anomalies. William
Bell Dinsmoor, however, was so convinced that a Doric “temple of such importance” 3

would not have been constructed in the Aegean Islands at this time that he assumed it to
2have been initiated as Ionic. Since then, evidence has come to light of the increasing
th 3popularity of the Doric order in the Cyclades from the late 6 c. onward. Much of the
evidence consists of isolated members, but enough is preserved of the Temple of Athena
at Karthaia, on the island of Kea, to demonstrate that it was executed fully in the Doric
4style already in the late 6th c. Although certain characteristics of the Apollo temple
remain unusual for Doric architecture, they may be explained as a reflection of this
emerging Cycladic-Doric tradition.

SLIDE: GREAT TEMPLE, PLAN
Scholars have been especially puzzled by the lack of corner contraction, which would be
expected in a Doric building at this time. J.J. Coulton attributed it to influence from
5 thWestern Greece, but by the early 5 century, Western Greek architects had also adopted
corner contraction. Instead, we might better explain this anomaly as resulting from a
carry-over of Ionic practices into the newly adopted Doric order. Ionic architecture,
which did not use a triglyph-metope frieze, employed the same spacing for columns at
the corners as elsewhere in the building.

An Ionic interpretation of Doric architecture may also explain other unusual features of
this temple. These include the relatively slender columns, with a height calculated
6around 5.5 diameters, comparable to those of the Parthenon. Such proportions may be
7ascribed to influence from Ionic shafts, which are typically slenderer than Doric and
seem to have inspired the characteristically narrow columns of Cycladic-Doric already by 4

the late Archaic period. The anta returns are also severely truncated, projecting 5 cm on
8the interior and only 7 mm on the exterior. This is in contrast to the marked projections
of Doric architecture but in keeping with the unenlarged Ionic anta.

SLIDE: EXTERIOR RECONSTRUCTION
Finally, the exterior triglyph-metope frieze is crowned with a moulding, which was
executed in the second phase of construction but, on the basis of proportions, was
9probably planned from the beginning. A moulded crown would be almost unique for a
thDoric frieze, although it is noted by both Courby and Coulton for the late 6 c. Temple of
Athena at Paestum, in southern Italy. It has also been recognized in an unknown building
at Sybaris and in a funerary naiskos from Megara Hyblaia, both also in western Greece
th 10and datable to the later 6 c. These western buildings show features that suggest Ionic
influence and the crowning moulding, which was typically placed above a continuous
Ionic frieze, may be counted among them. Its use above the Doric frieze of the Temple
of Apollo likely arises from familiarity with local, Ionic tradition.

SLIDE: PRONAOS FRIEZE
Perhaps the most unusual feature of the Apollo temple is the frieze associated with its
cella building. Nothing is preserved of it above the pronaos, but Courby calculated the
size and spacing of the members here from faint traces of the regula on the architrave.
This yielded a total of 8 triglyphs and 7 metopes. Not only do these numbers contrast
with the 7 triglyphs and 6 metopes of the opisthodomos frieze, but they prevent the usual
alignment of alternate triglyphs with supporting columns. Such a flexible approach to the 5

frieze is more in keeping with the continuous Ionic member than its rigidly prescribed
Doric counterpart.

According to Courby, the minimal projection of the exterior anta return and the
treatment of wall blocks demonstrate the continuation of these porch friezes onto the
sides of the cella building. Such an arrangement is almost unique in peripteral
architecture. A precedent may exist, however, in the Cycladic-Doric Temple of Athena
th 11at Karthaia, on Kea, built in the late 6 c. Moreover, local traditions may provide an
explanation for this unusual feature.

SLIDE: OIKOS OF THE NAXIANS
In contrast to their counterparts in Asia Minor, Ionic temples in the Cyclades usually lack
a peristyle. Thus their entablatures, including friezes, run above walls and porches. This
this the case with some of the earliest religious buildings known, as in the early 6 c. Oikos
of the Naxians on Delos and in the fourth Temple of Dionysos at Yria on Naxos, dated
12ca. 580-570 B.C. The Cycladic-Doric temples of Kea and Delos reflect Doric traditions
in the incorporation of the peristyle, but their architects preserved the earlier, Ionic
treatment of the cella building with its crowning frieze. The combination resulted in a
13Doric frieze on the sekos of a peripteral structure.

Another connection with Cycladic architecture may be found in the different heights of
the friezes on the Apollo temple, with that on the pronaos being slightly smaller than 6

elsewhere. This characteristic is paralleled in the gradual tapering of the Ionic frieze in
14the nearby Oikos of the Naxians, which was executed about a century earlier.

SLIDE: INTERIOR CORNER BLOCK, Reconstructed
Finally, interior corner blocks preserving traces of a half-triglyph next to a surface with
anathyrosis provide evidence for an interior frieze in at least the pronaos and probably
also in the opisthodomos of the Apollo temple.

SLIDE: INTERIOR CORNER BLOCK, view

SLIDE: AEGINA, OLDER TEMPLE OF APHAIA
The only parallel for an interior porch frieze known to me is in the pronaos of the
15Older Temple of Aphaia on Aegina, constructed around 570 B.C. That building was in
the Doric order and therefore also used a triglyph-metope frieze, but in this case it
extended around only three, rather than four, sides of the pronaos. The temple was
dismantled for construction of its successor, which scholars traditionally assume was
16begun ca. 500 B.C. Recently, it has been suggested that the Older temple may have
17stood until 480 B.C. and have been destroyed during the Persian Wars. Either way,
there would be a gap between its destruction and the construction of the Apollo temple.
With the second chronology, however, that gap would perhaps have been small enough to
allow for some influence. Without this precedent, one can only ascribe the interior
friezes in the Temple of Apollo to experimentation by its architect.
7

Indeed, the adoption of the Doric order in the Cyclades seems to have been a process
of experimentation and adaptation. By about 480 B.C., Doric is used exclusively for
Cycladic buildings. Yet as shown by the Temple of Apollo, it is a local version of the
order, and one that was influenced by previous Cycladic-Ionic traditions. This has
important consequences for our understanding of the choice of architectural order.

Several scholars have associated the adoption of Doric architecture in the Cyclades,
and especially in the Temple of Apollo on Delos, with political events, namely the
establishment of the Delian League and the increasing role of Athens as leader of the
Ionians. Athens had traditionally used the Doric order for her monumental architecture,
despite the Ionian heritage of her citizens. When, between 425 and 417 B.C., the
Athenians constructed another temple to Apollo on Delos alongside the early classical
one, it was fully in the Doric order. In fact, the Temple of the Athenians mimicked the
Parthenon in some of its characteristics. It might not be surprising, then, that a temple
built under the hegemony of Athens would reflect the architectural style of that city.

Yet during the Early Classical period, while continuing to use the Doric order, Athens
also began to adopt Ionic. Thus we see a shift in architectural styles in Attica as well.
Some scholars have attributed this development to political motives. Indeed, at least one
scholar cites the same motives as those presumed responsible for the Doric style in the
Islands, that is, Athens‟ role as leader of the Delian League.
8

The strongest case has been made in regard to the Stoa of the Athenians at Delphi. It
demonstrates one of the earliest uses of Ionic columns on the exterior of an Attic
18building.

SLIDE: ATHENIAN STOA, VIEW
The Stoa was dated by Pierre Amandry just after 480 B.C. on architectural and
19epigraphical grounds and associated with an episode in the Persian War. John Walsh
subsequently argued for construction in the 450s and in conjunction with the beginning of
the Peloponnesian War. Nevertheless, both authors attributed the choice of the Ionic
order to an expression of Athenian allegiance with Ionians of East Greece and the Aegean
Islands. In the first instance this would have occurred with the establishment of the
20Delian League; in the second with the increasing polarization of Greeks into Dorians
21and Ionians.

The architectural forms used in the Athenian Stoa, however, belong to the Attic
tradition. This is exemplified in particular by the column capitals.

SLIDE: STOA CAPITAL, RECONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Only three examples have been recognized, two fragments by Amandry and a nearly
22complete capital, including the reverse face, by Manolis Korres. Their traits are
distinctive: carving of the echinus on only one face, the echinus in 2-tiers consisting of an
ovolo over a cyma reversa, a central band on the bolster, and a cyma reversa profile for
the abacus. 9


SLIDE: STOA CAPITAL, VIEW (Meritt 1993, figs. 7-9)

SLIDE: ATHENIAN VOTIVE CAPITALS
Several of these traits seem to be borrowed from the Cyclades although they are
adopted by Athens with the introduction of the Ionic capital for votive dedications during
th 23the second half of the 6 c.

Thus, a smooth or incised, rather than fully carved, rendering of architectural elements
is characteristic of Cycladic architecture and is attested in capitals as well as other
components. The earliest example is a small votive column from the sanctuary at Sangri
th 24on Naxos, which is dated to the late 7 century. The volutes and corner palmettes are
articulated by deep incisions, but the echinus is left smooth. Additional examples of this
25type are known from Delos. These are dated by Roland Martin to the second quarter of
th 26the 6 c., before the infusion of more plastic influences from Asia Minor in the middle
of the century. By contrast, Aenne Ohnesorg places the earliest examples at the end of
ththe 7 century, which fits better with the proposed dating of the Sangri capital and
27accords with her derivation of incised detail from wooden predecessors. Indeed, the
rendering of these Delian capitals would seem to be partly a factor of chronology, since
ththey do not seem to continue after the mid-6 c. Moreover, in one of the latest capitals of
this group, from the eastern porch of the Oikos of the Naxians, the eggs of the echinus are
28rendered in relief.
10

Nevertheless, this group is distinctive in its sparing use of carving. A capital from the
interior of the Oikos of the Naxians shows only lightly incised volutes and a smooth
29 30echinus. The same treatment appears on at least three other members of this group,
whereas additional examples make use of incision to articulate the echinus and
31sometimes also the corner palmette. Even in the capital from the east porch of the Oikos
of the Naxians where the echinus is executed in relief, the volutes and corner palmettes
are incised. It would thus seem that a limited use of carved decoration was characteristic
thof Cycladic capitals, at least before the middle of the 6 c.

32 The earliest Athenian capitals likewise show a preference for smooth surfaces. The
volute coils were often executed simply in paint or through incision. When carving was
used, it was limited to the volute element, which could have raised borders or a slightly
concave rendering of the canalis and coils. Additionally, R. Borrmann notes that the
contours of the ornament might be lightly incised in the marble to serve as a guide for the
33 34application of color. Yet the echinus was generally left smooth.

SLIDE: ACROPOLIS CAPITAL 7797
th This treatment of the capital continues into the first quarter of the 5 c. with three
35additional votive crowns from the Acropolis. The canalis and volutes are concave and
bordered by raised fillets, but the carved elements are expanded to include raised fan-
shaped panels at the corners, in one case also with relief palmettes, and floral decoration
or astragals at the center of the bolster. Despite this greater interest in relief, the echinus
36remains smooth. This combination of concave canalis and smooth echinus will

Be the first to leave a comment!!

12/1000 maximum characters.

Broadcast this publication

You may also like