An Ariel View of the Colosseum
When thinking about the expression of political power through architecture, my mind immediately goes to the Colosseum in Rome, Italy. The Colosseum served as entertainment for the city, while also being one of the most iconic symbols of Roman engineering.
The Colosseum emphasizes political power through its sheer size and scale. It is located in the heart of Rome, showing the connection between imperial power and public entertainment. Its structure symbolizes the strength and influence of the Roman empire, and the city’s ability to fund such a monumental project. The Colosseum’s grand amphitheater design was a major venue for public events, which emphasized the emperor’s generosity for providing entertainment to the people. Within the architecture itself, the use of arches, vaults, and concrete showcased Rome’s engineering capabilities that have stood the test of time…so much so, that it is a site frequently visited by those all around the world. The Colosseum and its architecture is still referenced thousands of years later when discussing the Roman Empire and their political influence on the world.
This is an interesting interpretation of architecture as power in that you are asserting it as an expensive gift to the people of the Rome to not only highlight collective power, but also the power of those with rank (shown through the monetary and time invested, in this case). Its prominence in location and relative scale reinforces the idea of importance in that it can be easily accessed both physically and visually from around the city. The visual weight of materials with a porous structure utilizing the arch also speaks to your ideas about inviting the public in on the experience from any approach which feels very different from some of the other examples posted this week where access and exposure is very controlled. The longevity of the building is both a nice reminder of quality of craft and technological innovation, but it should also serve as a reminder that even the most powerful empires can expire.
This is an interesting interpretation of architecture as power in that you are asserting it as an expensive gift to the people of the Rome to not only highlight collective power, but also the power of those with rank (shown through the monetary and time invested, in this case). Its prominence in location and relative scale reinforces the idea of importance in that it can be easily accessed both physically and visually from around the city. This feels similar to the approach by those that designed Versailles in that the main arterials lead directly to this important place (Hardwood, 199).
The visual weight of materials with a porous structure utilizing the arch also speaks to your ideas about inviting the public in on the experience from any approach which feels very different from some of the other examples posted this week where access and exposure is very controlled. This idea of movement is antithetical to the baroquian approach which is through a forecourt, then a primary salon, and then into the garden beyond (Harwood, 196).
The longevity of the building is both a nice reminder of quality of craft and technological innovation, but it should also serve as a reminder that even the most powerful empires can expire. I appreciate now how this idea ties into our discussions in class this week (week 4) about the latter appreciation of ruins like these by the general public and expressed via people like Piranesi.
This is an interesting relation to political power in architecture. I think the Colosseum although for entertainment, was a very powerful symbol of imperial Roman power. I think it was a great example of a way to almost distract the public from everyday life, and exemplifies the Roman Republic’s power in showcasing and reinforcing civic pride. It’s a great example of how certain influences can be seen throughout classical architecture, what we are learning in the lectures, and how structures like this can have lasting effects on political structures throughout history.