Art History 203
Michael W. Atwell
The University of Louisville’s Humanities building is a large, three-story, brick
structure that is much wider than it is deep. The ordinary brick is bordered by giant slabs
of concrete. The first two floors are almost exclusively devoted to various sized
classrooms, while the third story contains faculty offices. Its most noticeable feature is a
large courtyard and brick line entry foyer that split the building into two sections, the
south of which is somewhat larger than the north. From the courtyard the building seems
as if it were once two buildings that were then sewn together with giant blocks of
concrete. A walkway connecting the two partitions seems to float almost unsupported
above the courtyard. A stairway from the courtyard bends around up to the suspended
walkway, giving it the same eerie unsupported effect. A similar stairway in the foyer
stretches to the third floor. The foyer and partitions surround the courtyard in glass,
giving the inside a very spacious feel. A large auditorium located on the south side
occupying two floors has a disturbing steepness. A similar room occupying one floor on
the north side has a more cozy and intimate feel to it. It is often used for small concerts
and recitals. Just outside the auditorium, there are large communal areas on both floors
littered with chairs and tables. The second floor area does not reach completely to the
walls, thus giving it a balcony effect similar to the walkway outside.
Another noticeable feature of the building is that some of the second and third
story classrooms jut unusually out from the building. While some of the classrooms use
vertical supports, the rest are held cantilevering. This causes the building to appear
somewhat blocky and top heavy. Despite its odd appearance, it fits in perfectly with the
surrounding buildings. These structures, namely the Ekstrom Library and the Life
Sciences building, employ the same blocky cantilevered style. This modern architecture
offers an interesting contrast to the older buildings on campus which hold more
traditional styles, like wood frames and even stone arches.
Overall, it has a very utilitarian feel with minimal decoration, save for the huge
bulletin boards in the communal areas that are plastered with multi-colored
advertisements. The restrooms seemed to have been placed as an afterthought at the far
end of the north side. Some of the smaller classrooms seem rather dark and institutional
as the cantilevers invade into the ceiling. Other classrooms seem almost too large, there
width being wasted. This is in stark contrast to the openness of the foyer and communal
areas. But this contrast serves a purpose. The openness of the communal areas and
courtyard promote a relaxing atmosphere, allowing the students to “wind down” between
classes. The classrooms, however, promote a more businesslike atmosphere and force the
students to concentrate. The windows in each classroom are either very small, as on the
first floor, or have their blinds drawn, as on the second floor. This allows the students to
make a quick but smooth transition between relaxation and matriculation.
The Humanities building illustrates at least two of Vitruvius’ principles. It is
certainly well constructed, embodying fermitas, and one can quickly determine the
buildings function from a quick tour, embodying utilitas. Like most architecture today, it
does not seem to rely on venustas, but a review of the building’s plans may reveal an
unknown symmetry.