Exterior Facade of the Louvre
We often look at buildings with the belief that the interior will match the exterior, that what you see is what you get, but that concept rarely exists in architecture. It seems as though even architecture is not black and white. That while the exterior of a building may look simple, believing everything is how it looks and taking everything at face value is not an effective form of judgement. When we look at the exterior facade of a building we are met with a vision, an idea of the kind of thought, style, and design detail was put into this building. We take that vision and expect the vision to meet reality, but the truth is that a majority of the time, architecture lies. What you see is not what you get.
The Louvre Museum is a great example of the concept that architecture can lie. From the outside is a gorgeously designed building complex in detail, but overall simple in structure. To the untrained eye the Louvre is just a stunning building that houses some of the worlds most famous art. But the truth is the the Louvre is more than just a pretty face. The Louvre lies. Its exterior is so simple that you think that it is a simple through and through building, yet it has the most complex interior design with the most secrets, except you wouldn’t know it until you go in. The Louvre houses an underground entrance and exit with multiple stores and access to the museum, while also placing detailed installations and so on.
Architecture lies. Architecture lies because if it doesn’t buildings are boring. The concept of “what you see is what you get” is boring. Knowing how a building looks just from looking at the outside leaves nothing up to the imagination. Architecture lies so we can imagine new was to look at buildings.
Ground Floor of the Louvre
Inside the Louvre
Inside the Louvre
I truly belive that your post is a summary of how deceptive the nature of architecture is. It resonates with the principles of early neoclassicism. Like your observation that the exterior of a building may not accurately represent the interior, neoclassical ideals embraced simple facades and more complex symbolic elements within.
How you explain how architecture lies to stimulate imagination explains the neoclassical emphasis on engaging the viewer’s emotions.
I totally agree that this is an example of the way architecture can be deceptive. The idea that the facade and exterior of a building are not a great representation of the interior is something I can agree with for it is one of my examples as well. I also agree with Vmenamor, in that this can be seen as neoclassical which we touched on in the lecture, can be an example in which basic facades can have a more unique feature within, however, the outside does not do well in supporting this, but how it can also emphasize the observer’s emotions, etc.
I also agree with architecture being a deceptive art form, and the Louvre is a great example. I remember when I first made the connection between the Louvre and it’s facade. I was surprised, to say the least. I had expected the interior to match the exterior, and it in fact did not.
I think it’s interesting to look at this building and see such classical language in terms of the facade, while the interior has more of a modern feel. Looking at the image of the ground floor and its glass additions, that could not have been possible were it not for the industrial revolution. In addition the narrative it creates that the Louvre no matter how old is still relevant from its use of classical and modern design moves.