Prudential (Guaranty) Building - Ornament

Ornament

The most remarkable problem for those wishing to cast Sullivan exclusively in the camp of proto-modernist designers is his steadfast and adroit insistence to ornament his buildings. Ornament is one of the most defining characteristics of the Guaranty as “The entire façade of this building is clothed in ornament, like hieroglyphs on the columns and walls of temples in ancient Egypt.” Sullivan’s ornament is unmistakably original, but it is not without precedents in the contemporary tradition of the English Arts and Crafts movement. “The numerous parallels between Sullivan’s ornament and the architectural decoration of Furness make it clear that Sullivan’s ornament came directly from Furness and, through him, from earlier ornament by English architects.” (Sprague 1979) The context of his ornament is important as it was seen as a salient amenity for the attraction of tenants to his buildings. For all the “good taste” his ornament might project to the tenant of the 19th century, it situated his design within an anti-classicist categorization out of “good taste” in the 20th century. Ironically this change was precipitated by the World's Columbian Exposition where Sullivan was the only American to win a European design medal and the only American to offer non-classically inspired design. The Guaranty, for all its evocative general expression of tectonics is equally as evocative at the scale of its modular terracotta components. “Here the balance of interest between the individuals and the group to which they belong is precarious, and the sheer number of compositional elements makes it difficult to attend to the individually.” (Andrew 1985) It is difficult to determine whether the ornament serves to reinforce the building or the building reinforces the ornament. The experiential effect of so much pattern and repetitive design is homogeneity in tension with the expression of individual components. Unlike the Wainwright building, where ornament is more directly patterned on historical forms and where spandrels are self differentiated, the Guaranty is almost brutal in the hierarchical treatment of and expression within its terracotta relief. Such conforming treatment is at odds with the supposedly democratic naturalism Sullivan claims for the design. Especially near the base, ornamental patterns reflect the span and connection of underlying steel members. As the components rise, a rigid pattern is followed, story upon story until the cornice where the pattern explodes into an umbrageous tangle of leaves and vines, encapsulating the windows and reaching outward over the street below. The ornament tells the same story as the theory which created it: bottom, middle, top- light steel skeleton within. The modulating ornament of the Guaranty also indicates the evolution of the medium for Sullivan as an artist. His initial explorations were inspired directly by contemporary work and historical precedent. Eventually his contact with Adler and work involving the “engineers aesthetic” led to more structurally expressive forms, and eventually to an art only his own, florid and organic. “From 1885 through 1889 Sullivan’s ornament lost much of its former angularity and became more sophisticated and luxuriant.” (Sprague 1979) It is perhaps due to Sullivan’s experiences at the Ecole des Beaux Arts that his ornaments as well as his building are given so much expressive and didactic energy. “His evident haste in wanting to set down the architectural vision before it became blurred even in the slightest degree presumably derives from the method at the French school of working from, and staying as close as possible to, the esquisse.” (Sprague 1979) This is an idea he apparently held for designing ornamental elements as well. His sketch for a column capital at the Guaranty labeled “finis” indicates the level of development with which his draftsmen began work. While containing some specific information, the sketch indicates more a painterly composition than a design document. Curiously, the process of design used by Sullivan to create such innovation was precisely that which prevented him from evolving his conception of plan and section to something his “modern” successors would explore. “In embracing the French theories of plan and esquisse, Sullivan remained firmly wedded to his time and place. . . By insisting upon the preeminence of plan, he could hardly have begun to imagine buildings with the spatial complexity of a Wright or a Le Corbusier.” (Sprague 1979)