Even though architecture is I separable from life as a whole, it is still possible to write a history of architecture in which it is regarded as an independent organism. The case is no different from that of mathematics or physical science. The evolution of mathematical knowledge is discussed ordinarily without reference to the social background against which it took place – this in spite of the fact that there is a baroque mathematics, as well as a baroque physics. The integral calculus is a perfectly consistent outgrowth of the baroque universalistic point of view. It is no coincidence that in this period promising of previous efforts is this direction invariably stopped short of a solution. And the two discoverers developed distinctively baroque schemes in other fields – Newton in his universally active laws of gravitation, Leibnitz in the monad`s internal relationships to stress the baroque origin of the integral calculus. It is independently a part of the whole body of mathematical knowledge, and its most significant aspect is the role it played in the evolution of mathematics.
The human factor obviously plays a much larger part in architecture than it does in science; the two are not entirely comparable. Nevertheless there is a history of architecture, and there are developments which are influenced by architectural considerations alone and can be evaluated solely in architectural terms. This history from baroque to nineteenth century times has its stormy moments and its full share of dramatic episodes.
If it is the general line of evolution which interests us – the development which runs through different periods, social orders, and races – then the formal and stylistic variations which mark the separate stage will lose some of their importance. Our attention will shift to the history of architecture as an enterprise with a continuous and independent growth of its own, apart from questions of economics, class interests, race, or other issues.
Architecture is not exclusively an affair of styles and forms, nor is it completely determines by sociological or economic conditions. It has a life of its own, grows or dwindles, finds new potentialities and forgets them again. The view of architecture as a growing organism is particularly useful in the study of American architecture. In this field concentration on styles, on particular outlets or manifestations of the life of architecture, leads us nowhere. The fundamental line of development that runs through the different periods, ignoring stylistic fashions, is the only way of escape from complete confusion. Style and their variations form a baffling maze, with all its alleys stopped.