Italian Renaissance Architecture

Although there was a pilgrimage back to Rome for many artist and architects to call it a renaissance was a bit far reaching.As we learned in class Renaissance is just another word for reawakening. To call the buildings the Italians (like Palladio) built renaissance architecture is a bit misleading because of the fact they did not know how to create concrete which the romans used.. Now many of the domestic villas that Palladio built were reminiscent of roman architecture however they only incorporate the ideals of the romans not the actual material. I agree with the professor when saying how can this be a renaissance when they couldn’t even replicate something as simple as concrete.  On the flip side there was an awakening of roman art and literature.  While the Italian Renaissances were happening there was a throwback to early roman architecture using such techniques as columns, arches, domes, and pediments.  I just don’t think copying the roman architecture is enough to call it a renaissance.  “The Villa Emo (Treviso, 1559) was a working estate, while the Villa Rotonda (Vicenza, 1566–70) was an aristocratic refuge. Both plans rely on classical ideals of symmetry, axiality, and clarity. The simplicity of Palladian designs allowed them to be easily reproduced in rural England and, later, on southern plantations in the American colonies.”  If you apply this quote to what happened on southern plantations in the Americas, would this not also be considered some type of renaissance because of the copying of Italian architecture.

.

.