Perspective into Physical

Now that we've come back to the Renaissance period, or rebirth, or post modernism of the ancient people, we've come to see "out of the box" architects challenge the rules set up by the majority. Similar to post modernism, which challenges the "Less is more" and "Honest" theories of the Modernist, the Renaissance architects had their debate. Since the architecture at that era were mainly based on the drawing of the proportion of the human body, Da Vinci's Vitruvian man, the arguments were mostly about symmetry and proportion. So if Classicism was the pass, why would someone start a new era repeating something that already happened? I'd say they are trying to point out some things that Classicism architects never arrived at, or in other words, giving a new perspective or point of view towards architecture. Many architects arrive at their building from diagrams and drawings, but these diagrams are things that are subjective to the person who made it. Say, why did Da Vinci only drew circle and squares with the Vitruvian man? Why cant we add a triangle, or a hexagon to the Vitruvian man? If we position the guy in another way, we we'd get new shapes. I believe this is why architecture can move on and on and on with just one main concept, but looking at it in different ways. For example, hundreds of years after the Vitruvian man was drawn, Le Corbusier drew a modular man in a different diagram showing a new aspect of the proportion of a man and used it in many of his buildings. By doing that, he is not proving Da Vinci wrong, but he is saying that he is not wrong as well. Even though diagram may seem to be arrived as facts, but the detail can be emphasized differently. That is why we see so many rebirths in the history of architecture.