Pros and Cons of Bernini's Design for the Louvre: Monumentality Without Dome, Pediment or Free‐Standing Column and Its Drawbacks

ABSTRACT In the 17th‐century Louvre expansion project, many architects used free‐standing columns, domes and large pediments for its east elevation. These elements helped give the elevation, over 150 m wide, the monumentality the court wanted, while also providing the appropriate articulation. Bernini was probably the only architect who did not use any of these elements. Instead, he relied heavily on engaged columns to articulate the elevation. However, his large order resulted in many unusual details: a broken entablature, a roughly twice as high plinth, a frieze not matching capitals, and strange molding under the architrave. Examinations of the documents and drawings show that these resulted from a conflict between “the columns that are enlarged while maintaining the same proportions” and “the functional dimensions and structural safety.” In other words, these were the drawbacks of combining monumentality and articulation in a palace of a size that the traditional Italian palace style would not have envisaged, while still adhering to the style. Bernini's Louvre did not receive the same criticism as the executed Colonnade, namely that it did not look like a residential building; however, we can see the limitations inherent in traditional Italian palace design there.