Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Architecture is one of the most powerful ways cultures express their values, beliefs, and technological capabilities—and the AP Art History exam knows it. You're being tested on your ability to recognize how structural innovations (like the Roman arch or Gothic flying buttress) enabled new artistic possibilities, and how architectural forms communicate meaning about power, spirituality, community, and identity. The exam frequently asks you to compare buildings across cultures and time periods, identifying both shared principles and distinctive approaches.
Don't just memorize what each style looks like—know why it looks that way. Understanding the relationship between form and function, between materials and meaning, will help you tackle any FRQ that asks you to analyze an unfamiliar building. When you can explain how a pointed arch serves both structural and symbolic purposes, or why a culture chose monumental scale over intimate space, you're thinking like an art historian.
The ancient Mediterranean established architectural vocabularies that would be revived, adapted, and debated for millennia. These cultures developed systematic approaches to proportion, structural engineering, and the integration of architecture with sculpture and painting.
Compare: Greek temples vs. Roman public buildings—both use columns and classical orders, but Greeks emphasized exterior perfection for divine worship while Romans prioritized interior space for human activity. If an FRQ asks about architectural adaptation, this contrast is essential.
Medieval European architecture evolved from heavy, fortress-like structures to soaring, light-filled cathedrals. Each development in structural engineering—from barrel vaults to flying buttresses—served theological goals of creating spaces that inspired awe and directed attention heavenward.
Compare: Romanesque vs. Gothic—both served Christian worship, but Romanesque emphasized God's protective power through mass and solidity, while Gothic emphasized divine light and heavenly aspiration through height and transparency. This evolution demonstrates how theology drives structural innovation.
From the Renaissance through Neoclassicism, European architecture repeatedly returned to classical models—but always adapted them to serve contemporary political and religious agendas. The choice to revive antiquity was never neutral; it communicated legitimacy, rationality, or spiritual authority.
Compare: Renaissance vs. Baroque—both drew on classical vocabulary, but Renaissance architecture emphasized calm balance and intellectual clarity, while Baroque used classical elements dynamically to overwhelm the senses and inspire religious devotion. The Counter-Reformation explains this shift.
Islamic and other non-Western traditions developed sophisticated architectural systems based on different religious requirements, materials, and aesthetic values. These styles demonstrate that monumental architecture serves universal human needs—worship, governance, community—through culturally specific forms.
Compare: Gothic cathedrals vs. Islamic mosques—both use architecture to create transcendent spiritual experiences, but Gothic achieves this through light flooding through figurative stained glass, while Islamic architecture uses geometric abstraction and calligraphy to suggest the infinite. Both manipulate light as a divine metaphor.
From the late 19th century onward, architects alternately rejected historical styles in favor of new materials and ideologies, then reincorporated historical references ironically or critically. This period tests your understanding of architecture as cultural argument—each style positions itself against what came before.
Compare: Modernism vs. Postmodernism—Modernism rejected historical ornament as dishonest and sought universal, rational forms; Postmodernism rejected Modernism's universalism as culturally impoverished and reintroduced history, ornament, and local context. Understanding this debate is essential for 20th-century architecture questions.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Classical orders and proportion | Greek temples (Parthenon), Roman Colosseum, Renaissance St. Peter's |
| Structural innovation enabling new forms | Roman concrete, Gothic flying buttresses, Modernist steel frame |
| Light as spiritual metaphor | Byzantine mosaics, Gothic stained glass, Islamic geometric screens |
| Architecture serving religious reform | Baroque Il Gesù (Counter-Reformation), Protestant plain churches |
| Revival of classical models | Renaissance, Neoclassical, Gothic Revival |
| Rejection of ornament | Modernism, Bauhaus, International Style |
| Reincorporation of history | Postmodernism, Deconstructivism (critically) |
| Non-Western monumental traditions | Islamic mosques, Great Mosque of Djenné, Hindu temple architecture |
Which two architectural styles both use classical columns but for opposing ideological purposes—one to inspire emotional religious devotion, the other to communicate Enlightenment rationality?
How do Gothic cathedrals and Islamic mosques both use light to create spiritual experiences, and what key difference in imagery reflects their distinct religious traditions?
If an FRQ asks you to explain how structural innovation enabled new artistic possibilities, which three styles would provide the strongest examples, and what specific innovations would you cite?
Compare and contrast Modernism and Postmodernism: what did Postmodern architects reject about Modernist buildings, and how did their designs express that critique?
How does the Great Mosque of Djenné challenge Western assumptions about the relationship between architecture and community, and what concept does its annual replastering ritual demonstrate?