Architecture and Evolution: II. Symmetry
As structures from all corners of the world attest to, one of the most universal phenomena in the history of architecture is symmetry. This is not without reason. The aesthetic value of symmetry stems directly from human nature.
Symmetry, in geometry, is the property by which the sides of a figure or object reflect each other across a line (axis of symmetry) or surface.1 This definition, referring to bilateral symmetry to be more precise, naturally also applies to symmetry in architecture. It is different from translational symmetry, which is what defines a pattern in design. There also exists rotational symmetry, which can be found in many human structures (think of the ornamental windows in many churches such as in the Notre Dame in Paris) and appears to have a certain universal appeal as well. Translational and rotational symmetry are beyond the scope of this article, but much valuable information about them can be found online.
Our preference for symmetry transcends cultures, geographies and history. Ubiquitous across the world, from the great cathedrals and palaces of Europe to Asian temples and pagodas and native Mesoamerican pyramids (Figure 2.1), symmetry is with rare exceptions universally regarded as a vital principle for beauty. Not only in the architecture of building exteriors, but also in the design of furniture, interiors and devices.
In the words of the great Roman architect Vitruvius, who lived in the first century AD:
Eurythmy [i.e. harmony] is beauty and fitness in the adjustments of the members. This is found when the members of a work are of a height suited to their breadth, of a breadth suited to their length, and, in a word, when they all correspond symmetrically.
Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture (Chapter II, Sec. 3) (c. 15–20 BCE)
Figure 2.1. Symmetrical native Mesoamerican temple-pyramids in the historical city of Teotihuacán, laid out according to a symmetrical plan.
It is easily established that humans have a significant aesthetic preference for symmetrical architecture. But the important conclusion that we can draw from the above is from what this preference stems. That is, is it the result of nature or nurture?
What we can infer, just as we could with respect to the value of aesthetics in architecture, is that the value of symmetry is universal and must therefore stem from our nature. Native American civilisations did not meet anyone from the other continents until Columbus discovered America in 1492. Long before that pivotal event did native Mesoamerican societies build their pyramids strictly symmetrically.2 Their ornaments were highly symmetrical as well. What coincidence would it be if these completely separate cultures, by chance, would have developed the same specific aesthetic preference through a process of nurture? Of course, these preferences could not have magically transferred to other civilisations across the oceans.
Symmetry had sprung up in human building practices even before the first architect in history was born (Imhotep is considered to be the very first architect in history). And, as the ancient Egyptians were not in contact with East Asian civilisations (at least not regular contact, if any), it would be an even greater coincidence that Japan and China independently developed a dominant preference for symmetry in their architectural designs as well. Moreover, in all these civilisations the preference for symmetry extends to pottery, furniture and ornament. Citing Charles Darwin:
‘… the eye prefers symmetry or figures with some regular recurrence. Patterns of this kind are employed by even the lowest savages as ornaments; and they have been developed through sexual selection for the adornment of some male animals.’
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1882.
Figure 2.2. The Forbidden City in Beijing, China. It was built in the early fifteenth century and consists of symmetrically laid out symmetrical buildings.
Figure 2.3. The great temple of Abu Simbel, Egypt. Built in the 13th century B.C for Ramses II.
Figure 2.4. Villa Rotonda, built in 1566 and designed by Andrea Palladio, one of the greatest architects of the Renaissance.
Evidently, us is left only one possible answer to the nature versus nurture question – Human nature is at play.
Findings from neurological and psychological research confirm this. Citing architect, author and researcher Ann Sussman, RA:
‘More recently, psychologists have tried to tease apart the extent preferences for symmetry appear to be hardwired in us, independent of our cultural or ‘savage’ heritage. Recent psychology studies, for instance, have explored whether adding symmetrical patterns to faces and craft objects enhances their appeal. They do, the studies reported: people consistently prefer symmetrical additions over the asymmetric (Cardenas and Harris, 2006). Researchers also note symmetrical patterns prevail in arts and crafts cross-culturally, whether it is in pottery, fabric design, tile ornamentation, or body decoration. Significantly, the tendency in crafts also seems to have arisen independently throughout the world, suggesting its primal place for our species. Bilateral symmetric objects are found in diverse, far-flung regions, ranging from the Navajo in the American West, to the Aonikenk, tribes of Patagonia, South America, to the Yoruba tribe of Nigeria (Cardenas and Harris 2006).’
(Ann Sussman in Cognitive Architecture, page 118/193)
Figure 2.5. Two Corinthian capitals. They are almost perfectly symmetrical along multiple axes and contain symmetrical ornaments, mostly in the shape of foliage.
Figure 2.6. Symmetrical ornaments in the Forbidden City in Beijing, China.
Referring to the same research paper by Cardenas and Harris, Sussman writes:
‘They also hypothesize why the preference prevails: “One possibility is that the adaptive value of detecting symmetry in potential mates generalizes to other objects” (ibid: 16). Perhaps because we like looking at faces and have evolved to take in and emotionally read them quickly, we also favor the main facial attribute, bilateral symmetry, in things we make and place around us. Faces ground and orient us in a random world from infancy onward. One might hypothesize there is a certain efficiency and predictability to designing buildings that reflect this arrangement not only because we are predisposed to take the form in, but because such new constructions may more likely reassure us, too.’
(Ann Sussman in Cognitive Architecture, page 120/193)
Our innate aesthetic preference for bilateral symmetry is thus evident from history and has been well confirmed by neurological and psychological research. Symmetry is an intrinsic feature of beauty that directly stems from our evolution. Our preference for it is deeply engrained in our minds and transcends all civilisations, climates, geographies and periods in history. It is a human universal.
In the next article of this series, I will show that ornament is just as much a human universal as symmetry is. Besides, within the domain of ornament more specific universals exist on which I will also cast a light.
Click here for the next article of this series.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved on 11 September 2021 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/symmetry-definition
Walker, N., ‘Mayan Classicism: Axial Symmetry in Uxmal (Part II of II)’, published on 13 January 2011, retrieved on 12 September 2021 from https://www.classicist.org/articles/mayan-classicism-axial-symmetry-in-uxmal-part-ii-of-ii/