Et in Arcadia? The Problems with Ruins

Abstract

The value of ‘the Ruin’ as a stimulus to reflection on the past and the passage of time was well recognized in the eighteenth and into the nineteenth centuries.1 An essential part of the organic, and therefore changing, ethos of the ruin was that it should be associated with whatever natural vegetation was appropriate and in a state of decay. This is summed up by the Revd William Gilpin's statement in 1786: ‘A Ruin is a sacred thing. Rooted for ages in the soil; assimilated to it and become, as it were, part of it; we consider it as a work of nature, rather than of art'.2 In 1982 David Watkin further concluded that a constant feature of the Picturesque is the subordination of architectural to associational values, which leads to the evocative powers of ruins and also the insistence that architecture is seen as part of its environment.3 Following this approach the ruin is thus seen as in decay (ruined), softened by vegetation and an integral part of its wider environment.