œuvre en façade

22:43 Sep 7, 2010 

I wasn't sure of the second type (and had forgotten about the third). Will try to remember to refresh my Dicobat memory when back in the office.

22:28 Sep 7, 2010 

I have looked up the Dicobat entry and there are three variants shown of "dans oeuvre" all of which fit my suggested criterion of an integral tower being completely contained within the plan of the main building. Not sure what the last bit of your posting means.

20:00 Sep 7, 2010 

Don't have Dicobat on me right now, but from memory it's diagram shows at least two variants of "dans oeuvre". One is a tower totally enclosed within the building, i.e. sharing no wall with the building but standing above the roof of the building. The second I'm not sure of; it may be a corner tower that is at least partially within the walls and is flush with the outside of the walls, standing partially proud on the inside of the walls.

18:10 Sep 7, 2010 

That is a very useful explanatory diagram, which certainly supports your answer and possibly mine too, though not my explanation about the plan. In any event, "flush with" certainly appears to be wrong.

Here is how Le Grand Robert defines it (my emphasis):
"Une pièce dans œuvre, ménagée dans le corps du bâtiment; hors œuvre, hors d'œuvre : hors du corps du bâtiment, en saillie ...
29 (…) on dira (…) d'un escalier qu'il est dans œuvre quand sa cage fait partie intégrante (…) d'une maison, hors œuvre quand sa cage fait saillie à l'extérieur. Les clochers d'églises sont bâtis dans œuvre ou hors œuvre suivant qu'ils s'élèvent au-dessus du portail ou qu'ils débordent la façade.

Louis Réau, Dict. d'art et d'archéologie, art. Œuvre."

17:03 Sep 7, 2010 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Corps_de_bâtiments.gi...

''dans oeuvre en façade'' is number 1. In my opinion, this is not flush with the façade.

07:55 Sep 3, 2010 

Yes. I think that the defining criterion is whether or not the plan of the building would be different if the tower were not there. In the Joe Connolly picture, it would be; in the case of Dugny-sur-Meuse and the other towers described as "tour dans oeuvre", it would not.

18:38 Sep 2, 2010 

Seeing the visual evidence now surely the tower IS the end façade, central between the aisles (bas-côtés)?

17:45 Sep 2, 2010 

I still can't get my head around the tower in your Joe Connolly example as not being "integral" to the facade. To my mind/eye, anything which is not free-standing is likely to be integral to the facade --providing we define "facade" as being the "front" or "face" of the *building* (as opposed to, say, the "facade of the nave" --which I've never seen, nor would I ever use). True, Connolly's tower is a "lateral" rather than a "central" one, but it is still part of the facade of the building and integrated into it. We might say that, the nave of that building terminates in a gabled facade, flanked by a tower on its south side (assuming it's "oriented").

17:36 Sep 2, 2010 

http://www.raisethehammer.org/static/images/joseph_connolly_...
That shows a church with a tower that is not integral but that is flush with the facade (so long as you disregard the corbelling).

Yes, the other one is a crossing tower, but is integral in the sense that it shares its structure with the other elements (nave and transepts), having shared dimensions.

17:00 Sep 2, 2010 

are useful (though some of the links don't seem to be live). Apparently, the English meaning is something like "forming an intrinsic portion or element, as distinguished from an adjunct or appendage" (OED), so "integral to the facade" would be, literally, correct. I still wouldn't know what the hell it meant, on its own, however; seems like any single tower which was not "free standing" (and thus not, literally, part of the facade at all) would be "integral" to it. The significant thing here is that the tower is flush with the facade, rather than, say, standing out from it (though still integral to it). Btw, I'd call this tower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Priory1837.jpg

a "crossing tower" --"integral" to the church's nave and transepts, perhaps, since it marks the juncture of the two architectural elements.