Picking a side in Piranesi’s Parere su l’architettura is inherently flawed due to the strong bias in favor of Piranesi as Didascalo. To reasonably pick an informed stance on the matter would require hearing Mariette’s counter-argument. That being said, the task is to, irrespective of the strong bias, pick a side in Parere su l’architettura, and the choice of Didascalo is clear to me.
I’m always inclined to appreciate the position of an architect challenging the status quo, and especially so if the status quo is one of rigorous classicism; I do, however recognize the importance of returning to the classics in the evolution of Architecture. I ultimately see architecture’s tendency to oscillate towards and away from classical architecture as a constructive process of push and pull, but I take particular interest in the points on the continuum when Architecture begins to move away from that ground state of classical architecture which it inevitably retreats to, and begins paving a new original direction. In this sense, I believe that Mariette as Protopiro contributes an important opinion necessary to the creative evolution of Architecture, but it is ultimately the opinion of Piranesi as Didascalo which really strikes a chord with my beliefs on neoclassical architecture (or any movement in Architecture which advocates for a return to the classics). I agree with all of Didascalo’s arguments on rigorous classicism’s restriction of creativity and how it stifles architectural progress, as well as the hypocrisy with which it contradicts its on theories; I’m just not quick to dismiss, however, the importance of taking a step back, analyzing architecture’s direction in the creative evolution of Architecture, and advocating for a return to the basics in order that it may pave the way for new an exciting directions in Architecture. I am decidedly a proponent of Piranesi’s strong criticism of rigorous classicism, however I think that figures such as Mariette play an important role in the creative evolution of Architecture even if they do so by taking it a step backwards and creating a period for reevaluation in order for Architecture to move forward.