kenneth frampton vs. neil leach: continuitate ªi ... · frampton favours the cultural and...

Studii ºi cercetãri ºtiinþifice de arhitecturã ºi urbanism / Architecture and Urban Research Studies / AARRGGUUMMEENNTT 99

KKEENNNNEETTHH FFRRAAMMPPTTOONN VVSS.. NNEEIILL LLEEAACCHH:: CCOONNTTIINNUUIITTAATTEE ªªII DDIISSCCOONNTTIINNUUIITTAATTEE ÎÎNN DDEEZZVVOOLLTTAARREEAA CCUULLTTUURRIIII TTEECCTTOONNIICCEE // KKeennnneetthh FFrraammppttoonn vvss.. NNeeiill LLeeaacchh::CCoonnttiinnuuiittyy aanndd DDiissccoonnttiinnuuiittyy iinn tthhee DDeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff tthhee TTeeccttoonniicc CCuullttuurree

ªef lucrãri dr. arh. / Assistant Prof. PhD Arch. CCoossmmiinn CCAACCIIUUCC

[email protected]

RREEZZUUMMAATT

Cultura tectonicã este divizatã în acest moment întreviziunile articulate de cãtre douã mari personalitãþiinternaþionale ale învãþãmântului de arhitecturã: KennethFrampton ºi Neil Leach. Angajamentul lor istoric estedivergent în ceea ce priveºte (1) conceptele teoretice, (2)modelele estetice, (3) codurile etice, (4) rolul tehnologiei ºi(5) principiile educaþionale de bazã.Studiul de faþã cautã sã analizeze conflictul discursiv laaceste cinci niveluri prin filtrul filosofiei arhitecturii(„gândirea slãbitã” în cazul lui K. Frampton ºi „gândirearadicalã” în cazul lui N. Leach), investigând baza teoreticãfundamentalã de pe care se enunþã temele continuitãþii ºidiscontinuitãþii în dezvoltarea mediului construit.Învãþãmântul de arhitecturã se confruntã la nivelinternaþional cu problema asimilãrii a douã modeledivergente din punct de vedere teoretic, care se raporteazãla valori culturale ºi evaluãri profesionale extrem de diferite.Concluzia se va referi pe de o parte la efectele profesionaleale separatismului cultural între partizanii „continuitãþii” (încultura tectonicã pe linia fenomenologicã) ºi cei ai„discontinuitãþii” (în cultura tectonicã digitalã pe liniapoststructuralistã), iar pe de altã parte, la posibilitateamedierii transdisciplinare între cele douã discursuri.

CCuuvviinnttee cchheeiiee:: culturã tectonicã, tectonicã digitalã,fenomenologie, poststructuralism, avangardã, ariergardã,revizionism istoric, mediere teoreticã

AABBSSTTRRAACCTT

Tectonic culture is divided in this moment between thevisions of two great international personalities ofarchitectural education: Kenneth Frampton and Neil Leach.Their historical engagement is divergent in what concerns(1) theoretical concepts, (2) aesthetical models, (2) ethicalcodes, (3) role of technology, and (5) fundamentaleducational principles.This study tries to analyze the discursive conflict at thesefive levels through the philosophy of architecture filter(“weak thought” in K. Frampton’s case and “radicalthought” in N. Leach’s case), investigating the fundamentaltheoretical base from which the great themes of continuityand discontinuity in urban environment are iterated. At aninternational level, architectural education is confrontedwith the problem of assimilating two divergent theoreticalmodels, which make reference to extremely differentcultural values and professional evaluations.My conclusion will refer firstly to the professionalconsequences of cultural separatism between the advocatesof “continuity” (inside the tectonic culture inspired byphenomenology) and that of “discontinuity” (inside thedigital tectonics culture inspired by poststructuralism);secondly, to the possibility of a transdisciplinary mediationbetween these two discourses.

KKeeyywwoorrddss:: tectonic culture, digital tectonics,phenomenology, poststructuralism, avangarde, ariergarde,historical revisionism, theoretical mediation

Kenneth Frampton ºi Neil Leach, douã maripersonalitãþi internaþionale ale scenei profesionale,împãrtãºesc viziuni extrem de diferite asupra culturiitectonice, producând o diviziune importantã îngândirea ºi pedagogia de arhitecturã. Divergenþapriveºte conceptele teoretice, modelele estetice,codurile etice, rolul tehnologiei ºi principiileeducaþionale de bazã. Conflictul discursiv la acestecinci niveluri este subiectul studiului de faþã, carecautã sã analizeze prin filtrul filosofiei arhitecturiibaza teoreticã fundamentalã a celor douã poziþii, înconjuncþie cu temele continuitãþii ºi discontinuitãþii îndezvoltarea mediului construit.Metodologia folositã în acest scop implicã uncomparatism care traverseazã graniþele disciplinare.Conceptele, modelele, codurile, principiile ºiatitudinile specifice ale celor douã personalitãþi vor fipuse faþã în faþã pentru a înþelege miza dezbateriiteoretice ºi consecinþele culturale mai largi. Dincolode convenþiile instituþionale ºi educaþionale, motivaþiaacestei comparaþii atinge problema fundamentalã amedierii între discursurile de arhitecturã.

((11)) CCoonncceepptteellee tteeoorreettiiccee

La Kenneth Frampton (1990; 1996: 1-28), conceptulde culturã tectonicã este derivat direct din teoria dearhitecturã elaboratã de Gottfried Semper, mai precisdin eseul intitulat „Cele patru elemente alearhitecturii”, publicat în 1851 (Die vier Elemente derBaukunst). Cele patru arhetipuri ale colibei primitivetraverseazã constant istoria arhitecturii, independentde stilurile estetice, devenind elemente decontinuitate la un nivel fundamental: soclul (sistemmasiv, realizat cu materiale grele, în relaþie cupãmântul), acoperiºul (sistem uºor din cadre-ºi-umpluturi, în relaþie cu cerul), pereþii (articulare întresistemele grele ºi cele uºoare), vatra (focarul social ºispiritual, concentrând semnificaþiile supreme ale

1100 Universitatea de Arhitecturã ºi Urbanism “Ion Mincu”/”Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urban Planning

Kenneth Frampton and Neil Leach, two world’s greatpersonalities of the professional stage share quitedifferent visions upon the tectonic culture andproduce an outstanding breakdown within botharchitecture thinking and pedagogy. The discrepancydeals with theoretical concepts, aesthetic patterns,ethical codes, technology role and basic educationalprinciples. The discursive conflict at these five levelsmakes the subject of this study which through thefilter of the philosophy of architecture is examiningthe essential theoretical foundation of the twoattitudes in relation to the topic of continuity anddiscontinuity in the development of the builtenvironment. The methodology used to this purpose involvescomparatism which goes across the disciplinaryborders. Notions, patterns, codes, principles andattitudes specific to both personalities are confrontedso as to understand the stakes of the theoreticaldebate and the broader cultural consequences.Beyond institutional and educational conventions, thereason of this comparison meets the essential matterof mediation between architecture discourses.

((11)) TThheeoorreettiiccaall nnoottiioonnss

With Kenneth Frampton (1990; 1996: 1-28), thenotion of tectonic culture derives directly from thearchitecture theory developed by Gottfried Semper,more precisely from the essay „The Four Elements ofArchitecture”, published in 1851 (Die vier Elementeder Baukunst). The four archetypes of the primitivehut go constantly across the history of architectureirrespective of the aesthetic styles and becomeelements of continuity at an essential level: the base(a massive system made of heavy materials related tothe earth), the roof (a light system made of framesand fillings related to the sky), the enclosure(articulating the heavy and light systems), the hearth

actului constructiv). Alcãtuirile uºoare din cadre-ºi-umpluturi definesc mai exact „sistemul tectonic” înopoziþie cu alcãtuirile constructive grele, echivalentecu „sistemul stereotomic”.Gândirea lui Frampton se bazeazã pe o dialecticã atermenilor binari. Printre cele mai importante opoziþiise regãsesc: distincþia dintre arhitecturã (act alcreaþiei lumii, de relativã permanenþã) ºi construire(proces tehnic aflat în continuã evoluþie); distincþiadintre muncã rafinatã (caracteristicã producþieiartistice) ºi muncã brutã (caracteristicã producþieiindustriale); distincþia dintre reprezentare (ce aratãclãdirea) ºi experienþa concretã (ce este clãdirea). Douã surse divergente servesc drept surse deinspiraþie teoreticã: fenomenologia (MartinHeidegger) ºi teoria criticã (Jürgen Habermas).Fenomenologia heideggerianã devine relevantãpentru înþelegerea aspectelor interioare alesubiectivitãþii, în timp ce teoria acþiunii comunicativea lui Habermas este folositoare cu privire la aspecteleexterioare sociale. Ignorând conflictul dintre cei doifilosofi, Frampton se foloseºte deopotrivã defenomenologie ºi teorie criticã ca de niºte „unelte”teoretice pentru interpretare, adoptând în acelaºitimp viziunea mai largã dezvoltatã în anii ’80 subeticheta „gândirii slabe” de cãtre Gianni Vattimo. Pebaza acestor modele, Frampton privilegiazãdimensiunea culturalã ºi istoricã a arhitecturii,opunând rezistenþã dominaþiei gândirii ºtiinþifice ºitehnologiei.

*La Neil Leach, noþiunea de digital tectonics (culturãtectonicã digitalã) defineºte în mod explicit o criticã laviziunea lui Frampton ºi o paradigmã nouã aproiectãrii digitale în slujba construcþiei concrete,inspiratã de opera recentã a teoreticianului ManuelDeLanda. Termenii cheie aparþin registrului tipicfilosofiei poststructuraliste (Leach, Turnbull &Williams, 2004: 70-77): procese deschise, transformãri


(a social and spiritual core that gather the suprememeanings of the building process). Light structuresmade of frames and fillings define more precisely the“tectonic system” opposing heavy building structurestantamount to the „stereotomic system”.Frampton’s thinking is based on the dialectics ofbinary terms. The most important contrasts include: adistinction between architecture (the act of creatingthe world which is quite permanent) and building (atechnical process under a continuous development);the distinction between refined work (typical forartistic production) and rough work / labour (typicalfor industrial production); a distinction betweenrepresentation (what the building shows) andconcrete experience (what the building is). Two diverging origins serve as theoretical sources ofinspiration: i.e. the phenomenology (MartinHeidegger) and the critical theory (Jürgen Habermas).Heidegger’ phenomenology becomes relevant interms of understanding the inner aspects ofsubjectivity, while Habermas’ theory ofcommunicative action is profitable in terms of socialouter aspects. Ignoring the conflict between the twophilosophers, Frampton uses both phenomenologyand critical theory as theoretical „tools” ofinterpretation, while adopting a broader visiondeveloped by Gianni Vattimo under the label of a“weak thinking” in the ’80s. Based on these patterns,Frampton favours the cultural and historicaldimensions of architecture crossing the reign ofscientific and technological thinking.

*According to Neil Leach, the notion of digitaltectonics (digital tectonic culture) explicitly defines acritique to Frampton’s vision and a new paradigm ofdigital design serving actual building inspired by therecent work of cultural theorist Manuel DeLanda. Thekey notions pertain to typical poststructuralist

ºi discontinuitãþi (în locul tipologiilor, arhetipurilor,reprezentãrilor ºi aparenþelor); morfogenezã(modelare geometricã anexactã sau topologicã,geometrie prin operatori variabili, pliuri spaþiale);virtualitate (spaþiu al posibilitãþilor imaginaþiei, câmpde variaþie, teritoriu al multiplicitãþilor); non-liniaritate istoricã ºi interpretare revizionistã adezvoltãrii urbane ºi arhitecturale; „smooth science”(gândire ºtiinþificã neconvenþionalã, neierarhizatã ºiintensivã, bazatã pe fluxuri ºi nomadism, în contrastcu cea convenþionalã ºi ierarhizatã); sisteme vagi(structuri descentrate ºi laxe, pluralismul soluþiiloractualizate, echilibrele multiple).Leach îi considerã pe Gilles Deleuze ºi Félix Guattarideschizãtori de drumuri pentru o viziune mai largã,capabilã sã depãºeascã abordarea „conservatoare” afenomenologiei heideggeriene, cãutând sã rãspundãmai pertinent provocãrilor lumii contemporane prinnoþiunile de gândire rizomaticã, indecidabilitate,deteritorializare ºi joncþiune a cunoaºterii (nicidecumunitate a acesteia). Împreunã, ele constituie un noumodel integrativ, capabil sã conecteze filosofia cuarta (din care arhitectura face parte) ºi ºtiinþa.Filosofia oferã concepte, ºtiinþa oferã funcþii, iar artaoferã senzaþii. Deleuze & Guattari (1999 [1991])cautã punþi de legãturã între principiile lumii naturaleºi cele ale lumii tehnologice ºi culturale: sistemeledevin constructe sociale, iar obiectele apar laintersecþia mai multor universuri posibile.Digital tectonics se dezvoltã prin urmare ca oalternativã radicalã la cultura tectonicã definitã deKenneth Frampton. Se leagã direct de criticapostmodernitãþii figurative ºi superficiale, de ideeaunei ultra-modernitãþi capabile sã atragã filosofiaalãturi de arhitecturã ºi ºtiinþele inginereºti înspeculaþia teoreticã, de schimbarea socialã,procesualitate ºi noul materialism (performanþastructuralã ºi expresivitatea materiei).


philosophy (Leach, Turnbull & Williams, 2004: 70-77):open processes, transformations and discontinuities(instead of typologies, archetypes, representationsand appearances); morphogenesis (anexact ortypological geometric modelling, variable-operatorgeometry, spatial folds); virtuality (a space ofimagination possibilities, a variation field, a realm ofmultiplicity); historic non-linearity and revisionistinterpretation of urban and architecturaldevelopment; „smooth science” (unconventional,non-hierarchical and intensive scientific thinkingbased on flows and nomadism contrasting with theconventional hierarchical one); vague systems(eccentric loose structures, pluralism of updatedsolutions, multiple balances).Leach thinks that Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari arepath breakers in terms of a wider vision able to gobeyond the „conservative” approach of Heidegger’sphenomenology, by attempting to respond morerelevantly to the challenges of contemporary worldthrough concepts such as rhizomatic thinking,indecidability, deterritorialization and junction ofknowledge (under no circumstances its unity).Altogether, they represent a new integrative modelable to connect philosophy to art (to whicharchitecture belongs) and science. Philosophy offersconcepts, science offers functions and art offerssensations. Deleuze & Guattari (1999 [1991]) look forcommunicating bridges between the principles ofnatural realm and those of the technological andcultural world: systems change into social constructs,while objects appear at the intersection of morepossible universes.Digital tectonics therefore induces a sort of numb-ness, a radical alternative to tectonic culture definedby Kenneth Frampton. It is directly connected tocriticism of figurative and superficial postmodernism,to the idea of a ultra-modernity able to getphilosophy along with architecture and engineeringsciences into theoretical speculation on social change,processuality and new materialism (structuralperformance and expressiveness of the matter).

((22)) MMooddeelleellee eesstteettiiccee

Pornind de la faptul cã arhitectura goticã estemodelul fundamental de înþelegere a principiilortectonice în formula cadrelor structurale cu umpluturineportante, Kenneth Frampton (1990) a investigatscrierile teoreticienilor marginalizaþi de ªcoala Beaux-Artes, Karl Bötticher ºi Gottfried Semper, cãutând odefinire precisã a autenticitãþii actului constructivtectonic (în opoziþie cu cel atectonic), care presupuneo corespondenþã între ceea ce clãdirea „aratã” laexterior ºi ceea ce „este” la interior (ontologie vs.reprezentare). Modelele profesionale majore aleculturii tectonice moderne sunt Frank Lloyd Wright,Auguste Perret, Mies van der Rohe, Louis Kahn, JørnUtzon ºi Carlo Scarpa. Lista continuã prin LuisBarragán, Vittorio Gregotti, Sverre Fehn, Luigi Snozzi,Alvaro Siza, Tadao Ando, Alberto Campo Baeza ºimulþi alþii, care au acoperit prin opera lor, în mãsurifoarte diferite, „episoade tectonice”.

Opera marilor maeºtri interpretatã în Studies inTectonic Culture (Frampton, 1996) se distinge princontextualism (valorizarea trãsãturilor topografice,climatice ºi culturale ale locurilor) ºi continuitatetipologicã cu precedentele istorice.

În plan estetic, ariergarda (sintetizatã în formularegionalismului critic) se distinge faþã de avangardã,recuperând la nivel istoriografic contribuþiileprofesionale marginale relevante pentru ideea decontinuitate esteticã ºi mediere între tradiþie ºimodernitate (Frampton, 1983): împletirea surselormoderne (dominante) cu cele tradiþionale(vernaculare sau clasice); evitarea criteriilor rigide deproiectare pentru un anumit loc; interpretareapoeticã individualã a reprezentãrilor colective.

*


((22)) AAeesstthheettiicc MMooddeellss

Starting from the idea that Gothic architecture is theessential model in terms of understanding tectonicprinciples within the formula of structural framesincluding non-bearing fillings, Kenneth Frampton(1990) examined the writings of theorists ostracizedby the School of Beaux-Arts, Karl Bötticher andGottfried Semper, seeking an accurate definition ofthe authenticity of the tectonic building process(opposing the atectonic one) that involves acorrespondence between what a building „shows”outside and what it “is” inside (ontology vs.representation). Major professional models ofmodern tectonic culture include Frank Lloyd Wright,Auguste Perret, Mies van der Rohe, Louis Kahn, JørnUtzon and Carlo Scarpa. The list continues with LuisBarragán, Vittorio Gregotti, Sverre Fehn, Luigi Snozzi,Alvaro Siza, Tadao Ando, Alberto Campo Baeza andmany others who covered through their works „tectonic episodes” to different extents. The works of great masters interpreted in the Studiesin Tectonic Culture (Frampton, 1996) come to thefront via contextualism (valuing topographic climaticand cultural features of the sites) and typologicalcontinuity with historical facts.

Aesthetically, rear-guard (integrated into criticregionalism) parts from avant-garde, recovering at anhistoriographic level side professional contributionsrelevant for the idea of aesthetic continuity andmediation between tradition and modernism(Frampton, 1983): mixing modern (dominant) sourceswith traditional (vernacular or classic) ones; avoidinginflexible design criteria associated with a certain site;an individual poetical interpretation of collectiverepresentations.

*


LOUIS KAHN, Muzeul Kimbell/Kimbelll Art Museum,Fort Worth, Texas,1966–1972/Foto/Photo:Cosmin Caciuc

MIES VAN DER ROHE, Noua Galerie Naþionalã de Artã/New National Gallery, Berlin, 1962–1968Foto/Photo: ªtefan Tuchilã

JØRN UTZON, Biserica Bagsvaerd/Bagsvaerd Church, Bagsvaerd, Denmark, 1968–1976 Foto/Photo: Adriana Udrea


K. SHEA, N. LEACH, S. VIDECNIK , J. VAN MECHELEN, eifFORM – Structure, Academie vanBouwkunst, Amsterdam, 2002

A. CHAN, Y. LIN, Ant Urbanism,University of Southern California, 2009

HUIJUAN YAO, ANQI ZHANG, SUHEEJUNG, M. Arch, University of SouthernCaliforniaÎndrumãtori/Project tutors: Neil Leach,Nick Pisca, Mangrove Urbanism, 2009


3e+WERNER SOBEK DESIGN, Standul Nautilus pentruMERO Systeme/Nautilus exhibition stand for MEROSysteme, Euroshop 2002, DüsseldorfFoto/Photo: Werner Sobek

WERNER SOBEK, LUCIO BLANDINI, STEFFEN FEIRABENDCupolã de sticlã/Glass Dome, University of Stuttgart,Germany, 1995Foto/Photo: ILEK, Stuttgart)

WERNER SOBEK, MAREN SOSTMANN, R129, 2001

Pentru direcþia digital tectonics, conteazã variaþia,diferenþa ºi noutatea (nicidecum tradiþia, repetiþiatipologiilor ºi ordinea rigidã). Formele iau naºtere din„stãri ale spaþiului” pornind de la „invarianþitipologici”, prin „procese morfogenetice” (Leach,Turnbull & Williams, 2004: 374). Arhitectura goticãeste apreciatã ºi reconsideratã din punctul de vedereal metodei constructive, opuse aceleia clasice greco-romane bazate reprezentare ºi aparenþã. Astfel,arhitecþi moderni precum Antonio Gaudi, Frei Otto ºiPier Luigi Nervi sunt extrem de relevanþi ca modeleestetice pentru direcþia digital tectonics, prin accentullor pus pe ideea de proces, performanþã structuralã ºimaterializare. Câteva birouri contemporane continuã în mod creativprincipiile explorãrii structurale cu mijlocele demodelare ºi calculare digitalã a formelor, care seapropie foarte mult de biomimetism: Mike Cook +Buro Happold, Greg Lynn, UN Studio, NOX etc. GregLynn, într-un interviu cu Neil Leach, sublinia conceptulde „structurã ornamentalã”, atacând distincþia clasicãdintre ornament ºi structurã, ºi înscriind de faptornamentul în structurã, potrivit unui model esteticdeleuzian (ibid: 62-68). Modelele biologice constituie o sursã de bazã aesteticii digital tectonics, conectate la o serie de surseexterne de inspiraþie: biofilosofie, teoriile comple-xitãþii, informaticã, ciberneticã, lingvisticã ºi psiha-nalizã. Dispozitivul teoretic este alimentat de un jar-gon tehnico-ºtiinþific de ultimã orã: „L-systems”,„cellular automata”, „genetic algorithms”,„generative design methodology”, etc. Ca uncontraexemplu, deºi este relizatã prin cele maiperformante tehnici de modelare digitalã, operarecentã a lui Frank Gehry rãmâne, din punctul devedere subliniat de Neil Leach, în vechea paradigmã areprezentãrii sprijinite de imageria scenograficã ºisculpturalitate (ibid: 73).


For the digital tectonics trend, variation, differenceand novelty do count, (not tradition, repetition oftypologies and a rigid order). Forms arise from the“states of the space” starting from “typologicalinvariants” through “morphogenetic processes”(Leach, Turnbull & Williams, 2004: 374). Gothicarchitecture is appreciated and reconsidered in termsof construction method opposing that of classicalGreco-Roman and based on representation andappearance. Thus, modern architects such as AntonioGaudi, Otto Frei and Pier Luigi Nervi are extremelyrelevant in terms of aesthetic models for the digitaltectonics trend through their emphasis put on theidea of process, structural performance andmaterialization.A few contemporary offices continue in a creativeway the principles of structural exploration by meansof digital shape modeling and computation which isvery close to biomimetism: Mike Cook + BuroHappold, Greg Lynn, UN Studio, NOX, etc. In aninterview with Neil Leach, Greg Lynn wasemphasizing the concept of “ornamental structure”,attacking the classical distinction between ornamentand structure, and actually placing the ornament intothe structure according to a Deleuzian aestheticmodel (ibid: 62-68).Biological models make a basic source of digital tec-tonics aesthetics connected to a number of externalsources of inspiration: bio-philosophy, theories oncomplexity, computer science, cybernetics, linguisticsand psychoanalysis. The theoretical device isempowered by a recent technical-scientific jargon: “L-systems”, “Cellular Automata”, “genetic algorithms”,“generative design methodology” etc. As acounterexample, although it is made due to the mostperforming digital modeling techniques, FrankGehry’s recent work remains, in terms of what NeilLeach has pointed out, within the old paradigm ofrepresentation supported by scenographic imageryand sculpturality (ibid: 73).

((33)) CCoodduurriillee eettiiccee

La Kenneth Frampton, practica arhitecturalã trebuieinformatã ºi reorientatã pertinent prin discursulistoriografic teoretizat ºi prin oferirea unor modele debunã practicã, aparþinând diferitelor generaþiiprofesionale. Discursul tectonic încurajeazã aborda-rea ecologicã ºi ideea mai largã de sustenabilitateculturalã. Arhitectura ºi urbanismul sunt înþelese caacte limitate în sens spaþial ºi temporal (ideea de„slãbire” a raþionalitãþii deterministe). Proiectanþiisunt consideraþi responsabili faþã de mediul încon-jurãtor ºi societate în termenii precizaþi prin discursulfenomenologic ºi cel al teoriei critice. Dezvoltareatectonicã durabilã implicã un echilibru fundamentalîntre producþie ºi naturã, iar mediul construit apare cao extensie metabolicã a mediului natural (Frampton,1974). Opunerea rezistenþei faþã de cultura deconsum se alãturã criticii arhitecturii ca imagine-la-modã ºi încurajãrii interpretãrilor istoriograficerevizioniste produse în „culturile marginale”. Fãcândparte din sfera operei artistice, arhitectura implicãsemnificaþii fundamentale, responsabilitãþi sociale, unefort creativ stabil ºi un caracter public ºi normativ.Printre exemplele principale de arhitecturã motivatãetic se numãrã: ºcoala Strawbery Vale în Victoria,Canada (Patkau Architects, 1996) – spaþii interme-diare de tipul prispelor; Centrul Educaþional Boyd dinWest Cambewarra, Australia (Glenn Murcutt, 1999) –anvelopantele inteligente care rãspund prin confi-guraþii pasive condiþiilor de mediu; Centrul CulturalJean-Marie Tjibaou din Noumea, Noua Caledonie(Renzo Piano, 1998) – reinterpretarea modernã aprincipiilor ecologice tradiþionale; CommerzbankFrankfurt, Germania (Norman Foster, 1997) – grãdinisuspendate ºi ventilaþie naturalã la o clãdire înaltã debirouri; Halle 26, Expoziþia din Hanovra (ThomasHerzog, 1996) – configuraþia pasivã a anvelopantei,expresivã din punct de vedere tectonic.


((33)) EEtthhiicc CCooddeess

According to Kenneth Frampton, architecturalpractice needs to be informed and relevantlyredirected via a theorized historiographical discourseand by offering some models of good practicepertaining to different professional generations. Thetectonic discourse encourages ecological approachand a wider idea of cultural sustainability. Architec-ture and urbanism are understood as spatially andtemporally limited events (the idea of “weakening”determinist rationality). Designers are consideredresponsible to environment and society in the termsspecified by the phenomenological discourse and thatof the critical theory. Sustainable tectonic develop-ment involves an essential balance between pro-duction and nature. The built environment appears asa metabolic extension of the natural environment(Frampton, 1974). Resistance to consumer culturejoins architectural critique as an in-fashion image andencouragement of revisionist historiographical inter-pretations produced in “marginal cultures”. As part ofthe artistic work field, architecture involves basicmeanings, social responsibility, a steady creativeeffort and a public normative character. Majorexamples of ethically motivated architecture include:Strawbery Vale School in Victoria, Canada (PatkauArchitects, 1996) – intermediate spaces of the“stoop” kind; Boyd Educational Centre in WestCambewarra, Australia (Glenn Murcutt, 1999) –intelligent envelopes meeting the environmentalconditions through passive configurations; Jean-MarieTjibaou Cultural Centre in Noumea, New Caledonia(Renzo Piano, 1998) – a modern reinterpretation oftraditional ecological principles; CommerzbankFrankfurt, Germany (Norman Foster, 1997) – hanginggardens and natural ventilation in a high officebuilding, Halle 26, Hanover exhibition (ThomasHerzog, 1996) – a passive configuration of theenvelope quite expressive in terms of tectonics.

În prelungirea viziunii filosofice deleuziene, FélixGuattari (1995 [1992]) ºi-a sistematizat perspectiva saasupra unei „etici fãrã fundaþii”, articulândurmãtoarele aspecte: ecosofie (ecologia generalizatã,a mediului, a societãþii ºi a psihicului); anti-holism;eterogenitate ºi multiplicitate; celebrarea trecerii dela paradigma ºtiinþificã tradiþionalã la paradigmaetico-esteticã (creativitate ºi procesualitate radicale);„procesele maºinice” (descrierea ciberneticã arelaþiilor sociale prin conceptele lansate de HumbertoMaturana ºi Francisco Varela); critica consensuluiraþional habermasian ºi a „tehnofobiei heidegger-iene”; noi condiþii sistemice ale vieþii ºi valori culturale;conectivitate generalizatã (noi reþele profesionale).„Procesele maºinice”, conectivitatea generalizatã anoilor reþele profesionale ºi ecologia sunt surseleevidente de inspiraþie pentru o eticã a miºcãrii digitaltectonics (ca în exemplele oferite de practica unorbirouri precum OCEAN North ºi eifForm). Pentru NeilLeach, proiectantul nu mai e o figurã demiurgicã, ciun „controlor de procese care permite alcãtuirilor sãaparã”, ajutat de computer, un veritabil „partener decolaborare” (Leach, Turnbull & Williams, 2004: 8) ºi „ounealtã socialã de optimizare a resurselor în regiunilemai puþin privilegiate ale lumii” (ibid.: 75).

Procesele de cãutare formalã sunt non-deterministe,inclusiviste, cu mai multe alternative valide, fãrã sãprescrie tiparele de folosire, într-un mod similarconceptului de „operã deschisã” susþinut de UmbertoEco. Noul model de colaborare profesionalã renunþãla relaþia tradiþionalã maestru-ucenic („top-down”) ºipropune ideea biologicã de „swarm intelligence”, încare „fiecare miºcare a individului se poate reflecta încomportamentul întregului grup” (ibid.: 71-72).Printre cuvintele cheie ale acestui discurs se regãsesc:autoreglarea, adaptarea, interacþiunea, inelelefeedback, recunoaºterea de tipare, controlul indirect,organizarea orizontalã.


Extending Deleuzian philosophical vision, FelixGuattari (1995 [1992]) systematized his outlook on“ethics without foundations”, joining the followingaspects: ecosophy (generalized ecology, that ofenvironment, society and mind), anti-holism,heterogeneity and multiplicity; celebrating the shiftfrom a traditional scientific paradigm to the ethical-aesthetic one (creativity and radical processuality);“machinic processes” (describing cyber social relationsthrough concepts introduced by Humberto Maturanaand Francisco Varela); a critique of Habermas’rational consent and of “Heidegger’s technophobia”;new systemic conditions of life and cultural values;generalized connectivity (new professional networks).“Machinic processes”, generalized connectivity of newprofessional networks and ecology are the obvioussources of inspiration for some ethics of the digitaltectonics movement (as in the examples provided bythe practice of some offices such as OCEAN North andeifForm). According to Neil Leach, the architect is nolonger a demiurgic figure; he is a “process controllerallowing compositions to appear”, helped by acomputer, a genuine “collaborative partner” (Leach,Turnbull & Williams, 2004: 8) and “a social tool tooptimize resources in less privileged areas of theworld” (ibid.: 75).Formal search processes are non-deterministic and“inclusivist” offering more valid alternatives withoutprescribing patterns of use, in a manner similar toUmberto Eco’s “open work” concept. The new modelof professional collaboration leaves the traditionalmaster-disciple (“top-down”) relationship andproposes the biological idea of “swarm intelligence”,where “every movement of an individual agent canbe reflected into the global behaviour of a group”(ibid.: 71-72 ). The key words of this discourse include:self-regulation, adjustment, interaction, feedbackrings, pattern recognition, indirect control, horizontalorganization.

((44)) RRoolluull tteehhnnoollooggiieeii

Kenneth Frampton a subliniat în mod constantopoziþia dintre loc ºi tehnologie. În arhitecturã,prioritatea nu trebuie acordatã tehnologiei în sine, ciadaptãrii actului constructiv la condiþiile particulareculturale, climatice ºi topografice ale siturilor în careintervenþiile au loc. O altã opoziþie importantã este cea dintre tradiþie ºiinovaþie, mediatã tot prin modelul fenomenologic.Proiectarea de arhitecturã este legatã de aspectesubiective, definindu-se ca un act creativ empiric ºiezitant, nicidecum liniar, cauzal sau perfect raþional.Pentru cultura tectonicã autenticã, cãutareaoriginalitãþii nu devine un scop în sine. Frampton îi considerã pe adepþii direcþiei digitaltectonics ca pe niºte avangardiºti pentru care nuexistã absolut nicio îngrijorare cu privire la nouanaturã condusã de un algoritm genetic capabilã sãînlocuiascã cultura mediului înconjurãtor, sau cuprivire la faptul cã tehnologia este orientatã cinic spremaximizarea proceselor de modernizare corporatistã(Caciuc, 2010: 102). Istoricul britanic mai adaugãobservaþia cã abordarea morfologicã este inspiratãarbitrar din procesele biomorfice ºi ºtiinþelecomplexitãþii, ajungând la o concluzie implacabilã:„Tectonica digitalã, în ciuda oricãrei pretenþii lasustenabilitate, este evident non-fizicã” (ibid.). Totuºi,în ultima sa ediþie din Modern Architecture (2007)câteva exemple de arhitecturã produsã cu mijloacedigitale sunt apreciate contribuþia lor evidentã lacreaþia de spaþii publice semnificative cu un înaltcaracter civic ºi expresie tectonicã, precum terminalulportuar din Yokohama, Japonia (Foreign OfficeArchitects, 2002) sau galeria Fiera di Milano, Italia (M.Fuksas, 2005). Pentru Frampton, tehnoºtiinþa continuã moder-nizarea într-un mod dezechilibrat ºi la o ratã atransformãrii greu asimilabilã la nivel social, cultural ºi


((44)) TThhee RRoollee ooff TTeecchhnnoollooggyy

Kenneth Frampton has consistently stressed theopposition between place and technology. Inarchitecture, priority should not be given totechnology itself but to adjusting the building processto particular cultural, climatic and topographicconditions of the sites where interventions are made.Another important opposition lies between traditionand innovation, also mediated by the pheno-menological model. Architectural design is related tosubjective aspects, defining itself as a creativeempirical and hesitant act, in no circumstances linear,causal or perfectly rational. In terms of genuinetectonic culture, the search for originality does notbecome a purpose itself.Frampton sees the digital tectonics followers as avant-gardists who do not have any concerns about thenew nature led by a genetic algorithm able to replacethe culture of the environment, or about the fact thattechnology is cynically directed towards maximizingcorporate modernization processes (Caciuc, 2010:102). The British historian adds a remark on themorphological approach being arbitrary inspired bybiomorphic processes and complexity sciences, thusreaching an implacable conclusion: “Digital tectonics,despite any claims to sustainability, is obviously non-physical” (ibid.). However, in the latest edition ofModern Architecture (2007) some examples ofarchitecture produced by digital means areappreciated – their manifest contribution to creatingoutstanding public spaces including a highly civiccharacter and a tectonic expression, such as the portterminal in Yokohama, Japan (Foreign OfficeArchitects, 2002) or the Fiera di Milano Gallery, Italy(M. Fuksas, 2005).According to Frampton, techno-science continuesmodernization in an unbalanced manner and at arate of transformation difficult to assimilate at a

biologic. Conceptul de „practicã reflexivã” descris prinexemplele oferite în Modern Architecture ºi Studies inTectonic Culture ar putea sã exprime mai bine ideeaunei modernizãri responsabile, limitate etic ºi capabilesã rãspundã creativ determinãrilor contextuale ºiecologice.

*Digital tectonics apare atât ca o criticã a„tehnofobiei” heideggeriene, cât ºi ca o criticã aarhitecturii digitale produse ca un cult al imaginilorsau ca imagerie exclusivã pentru cyberspaþiu. Dinacest punct de vedere, este o ripostã la contra-culturadigitalã susþinutã de Frampton, o respingere apostmodernismului ºi o validare a pãtrunderiiinevitabile a mijloacelor digitale în cultura tectonicã(modelare ºi calcul structural). Neil Leach vededizolvatã opoziþia dintre digital ºi tectonic, atâtavreme cât digitalul serveºte cultura tectonicã,manifestând interes pentru structura clãdirii ºicolaborarea interdisciplinarã cu inginerii. Legãturadirectã dintre proiectare ºi realizare prin tehnologii:stereolitografia, „Computer Numerically Controlledmilling operations” (CNC), „Rapid Prototypingprocesses” (Leach, Turnbull & Williams, 2004: 8).Manuel DeLanda susþine în eseul „MaterialComplexity” (ibid.: 14-21) experimentarea empiricã acomportãrii materialelor ºi noilor aliaje în termeniiproceselor ºi adaptãrii dinamice, la nivelul „ºtiinþelorminore” descrise de Deleuze. Noua tehnologieexprimã pe de altã parte ºi o filosofie a structurii (prinDeleuze ºi interpretãrile lui DeLanda) articulatã înconceptele de conectivitate ºi nonliniaritate.Prin sprijinul acordat tehnologiei, Neil Leachîncurajeazã, împreunã cu DeLanda, o „filosofie astructurii ºi materialelor” (ibid.: 10). Existã o strânsãlegãturã între gândirea mediatã de reþelele decomputere ºi prelucrarea materialelor, dincolo deaspectele strict estetice (calculul static, simularea


social, cultural and biological level. The concept of“reflective practice” described via the examplesprovided in Modern Architecture and Studies inTectonic Culture could better express the idea ofresponsible modernization, ethically limited and ableto creatively respond to contextual and ecologicaldeterminations.

*Digital tectonics appears both as a critique ofHeidegger’s “technophobia” and as a critique ofdigital architecture produced as a cult of images or asexclusive imagery for the cyberspace. From this pointof view, it is a retort to digital counter-culture pleadedby Frampton, a rejection of postmodernism and avalidation of the inevitable penetration of digitalmedia into tectonic culture (structural modeling andcomputation). Neil Leach sees the oppositionbetween digital and tectonic dissolved as long asdigital serves tectonic culture showing interest in thebuilding structure and the interdisciplinarycollaboration with engineers. The Direct link betweendesign and technology manufacturing:stereolithography, “Computer Numerically Controlledmilling operations” (CNC), “Rapid PrototypingProcesses” (Leach, Turnbull & Williams, 2004: 8).Manuel DeLanda supports in his essay “MaterialComplexity” (ibid.: 14-21) the empirical experiment ofthe behaviour of materials and new alloys in terms ofprocesses and dynamic adjustment, at the “minorscience” level described by Deleuze. On the otherhand, the new technology also expresses a philosophyof structure (by Deleuze and DeLanda’sinterpretations) articulated in connectivity and non-linearity concepts.By supporting technology, Neil Leach and DeLandaencourage a “philosophy of structure and materials”(ibid.: 10). There is a close link between thinkingmediated by computer networks and materialprocessing beyond purely aesthetic aspects (static

deformãrilor seismice, simularea comportamentuluiacustic, evaluarea performanþei ecologice etc.).Computerul nu este unealtã de reprezentare, ci un„instrument generativ” care face parte din procesulde proiectare, ca în recent mediatizatele exempleoferite de Karl Chu, Kristina Shea, Marcelyn Gow,David Erdman, SERVO, Toyo Ito & ARUP (TheSerpentine Pavillion, Londra, 2002), Bernard Cache,Cecil Balmond, Chris Williams.

((55)) PPrriinncciippiiiillee eedduuccaaþþiioonnaallee ddee bbaazzãã

În cultura tectonicã inspiratã de fenomenologie, se vacontinua reinterpretarea principiilor ºi exempleloroferite de marii maeºtri ai Miºcãrii Moderne (Wright,Perret, Mies, Kahn, Utzon ºi Scarpa). Cultivarearelaþiei maestru-discipol (animatã de ideeacontinuitãþii pedagogice) se articuleazã cu încurajareapracticilor marginale ºi critice asupra modernizãrii,fãrã abandonarea ideii de emancipare ºi progres.Deschiderea esteticã se susþine printr-o explorareponderatã a ideii de modernitate, din care temeletransistorice nu lipsesc. Abordarea unei atitudinicontextuale, orientate cãtre loc (topografie, climã,luminã, ventilaþie naturalã, vecinãtãþi etc.) constituieun punct important pe lista valorilor profesionale,alãturi de explorarea edificãrii concrete, relevantepentru toate simþurile. Înþelegerea ºi exprimareasemnificaþiei fenomenologice a actului constructiv ºi alocuirii prin cultivarea sensibilitãþii poetice se îmbinãcu înþelegerea ºi exprimarea caracterului civic alarhitecturii, cãutând echilibrul între spaþiile publice ºicele private. Cunoaºterea, respectarea ºi folosireacriticã a principiilor construirii ecologice capãtã aici ºimai mult sens, prin activarea rezistenþei în faþa culturiide consum, denunþarea populismului ºi opoziþiafermã faþã de omogenizarea prin tehnologie.

*


computation, simulation of seismic deformation,simulation of acoustic behaviour, environmentalperformance assessment, etc.). The computer is not arepresentation tool; it is a “generative tool” which ispart of the design process, as in recently mediatizedexamples offered by Karl Chu, Kristina Shea, MarcelynGow, David Erdman, SERVO, Toyo Ito & Arup (TheSerpentine Pavilion , London, 2002), Bernard Cache,Cecil Balmond, Chris Williams.

((55)) BBaassiicc EEdduuccaattiioonnaall PPrriinncciipplleess

In the tectonic culture inspired by phenomenology,reinterpretation of principles and examples offeredby the great masters of the Modern Movement(Wright, Perret, Mies, Kahn, Utzon and Scarpa) willcontinue. The promotion of master-disciple relation-ship (inspired by the idea of pedagogical continuity)joins the encouragement of marginal and criticalpractice on modernization without abandoning theidea of emancipation and progress. Aesthetictransparency is supported by a balanced explorationof the idea of modernity where trans-historic issuesare present. A site-oriented approach of a contextualattitude (topography, climate, light, natural venti-lation, neighborhoods, etc.) makes a major entry onthe list of professional values along with the explo-ration of material guidance relevant to all senses.Understanding and expressing the phenomenologicalmeaning of both the building process and thehousing through promoting poetic sensibilitycombines with understanding and expressing the civiccharacter of architecture by searching for a balancebetween public and private spaces. Knowledge,compliance and use of eco-building principles acquirea more critical denotation by stirring resistanceagainst consumer culture, denouncing populism andfirmly opposing homogenization through technology.

*

Digital tectonics susþine, de asemenea, o interpretarerevizionistã a istoriei prin sublinierea exemplelormarginalizate de istoriile raþionaliste ale MiºcãriiModerne, însã într-o direcþie radical diferitã de aceeaa discursului fenomenologic. Respingerea ideii dearhitect-figurã demiurgicã (aflat la originea exclusivãa actului creativ) deschide calea conceptului deinteligenþã colectivã, în care întregul e mai maredecât suma pãrþilor individuale, inspiratã de modelebiologice ºi filosofice (algoritmi genetici). Auto-organizarea colectivã descrisã cibernetic ºi noilecategorii profesionale devin consecinþa fireascã aslãbirii distincþiilor între inteligenþa artificialã ºiinteligenþa umanã. Pe fondul interdisciplinaritãþii, alreformulãrii radicale a disciplinelor ºi a noilor formede colaborare între arhitecturã, inginerie ºi filosofie,arhitectul devine un modest „controlor de procese” ºise implicã în noi forme de producþie a semnificaþiei ºide însuºire a spaþiului locuit (diferite faþã de tiparulfenomenologic ºi arhetipurile tradiþionale). Înviziunea lui Neil Leach, asimilarea criticã a globalizãriiprin tehnologie se angreneazã firesc la respingereaculturii de consum superficiale ºi la o sensibilitatecriticã faþã de principiile ecologice.

OO ppoossiibbiillãã mmeeddiieerree

În acest moment, cultura tectonicã este divizatã înmod fundamental între un model al continuitãþii,orientat cãtre marile tradiþii clasice ºi moderne(Kenneth Frampton), critic la adresa noilor tehno-logii, ºi un model al discontinuitãþii, orientat cãtre unviitor reorganizat radical la nivel social ºi profesional,prin tehnologie. O mediere între „gândirea slabã” ºi„gândirea radicalã” este posibilã în plan teoretic;Ignasi de Solà-Morales a articulat în mod ne-convenþional deopotrivã aspecte fenomenologice ºipostructuraliste (cu referinþã la opera lui Gilles


Digital tectonics also supports a revisionistinterpretation of history by highlighting examplesmarginalized by rationalist histories of the ModernMovement, in a completely different direction fromthat of the phenomenological discourse, though.Rejecting the idea of the architect as a demiurgicfigure (at the exclusive origin of the creative act)opens the way to the concept of collectiveintelligence where the whole is greater than the sumof individual parts, inspired by biological andphilosophical models (genetic algorithms). Collectiveself-organization cybernetically described along withthe new professional categories become the naturalconsequence of weakening the distinctions betweenartificial intelligence and human intelligence. Amidinterdisciplinary, radical reformulation of disciplinesand new forms of collaboration between architec-ture, engineering and philosophy, the architectbecomes a modest “process controller” and getsengaged into new forms of producing the meaningand appropriating the living space (different from thephenomenological pattern and the traditionalarchetypes). In Neil Leach’s view, critical assimilationof globalization through technology naturallyengages in rejecting superficial consumer culture andadopting a critical sensitivity to ecological principles.

AA ppoossssiibbllee mmeeddiiaattiioonn

At this time, tectonic culture is fundamentally dividedbetween a model of continuity trimmed to majorclassical and modern traditions (Kenneth Frampton),however critical to new technologies, and adiscontinuity model targeting a future radicallyreorganized at a social and professional level viatechnology. Theoretically, a mediation between“weak thinking” and “radical thinking” is possible;Ignasi de Solà-Morales articulated both phenomeno-logical and poststructuralist aspects in an un-conventional manner (making reference to Gilles

Deleuze) descriind episoadele istoriografiei arhitec-turii contemporane ca pe niºte „topografii” întransformare, activate simultan de repetiþie(continuitate, ariergardã) ºi diferenþã(discontinuitate, avangardã). La 16 ani de la publicarea Differences – Topographiesof Contemporary Architecture (Solà-Morales,1997[1995]), ne confruntãm cu aceeaºi problemã amedierii între repetiþie ºi diferenþã. Cum se pot mediala nivel estetic, în mediul construit existent, producþiaculturii tectonice exemplificatã de Frampton ºi culturatectonicã digitalã susþinutã de Leach? La nivel etic,este arhitectura obligatã sã reprezinte complexitateasocietãþii ºi procesele din sfera ºtiinþificã? Pot oaremijloacele digitale (concepþie ºi producþie) sã leînlocuiascã pe cele tradiþionale în zonele mai puþindezvoltate ale globului ºi sã rezolve non-conflictualproblemele locale, fãrã sã niveleze diferenþele? Pot sãcoexiste non-conflictual sistemele tradiþionaleeducaþionale (bazate pe continuitate) ºi cele inspiratede ciberneticã (promotoare ale discontinuitãþii)?

O posibilã mediere s-ar putea sprijini chiar pepunctele comune de plecare ale celor douã viziuni:valorizarea actului concret al materializãrii, preþuireaunor modele istorice comune (arhitectura goticã ºiemanciparea culturalã din cadrul Miºcãrii Moderne încazul occidental), relevanþa structurii în raport cuanvelopanta, simpatia pentru ecologie, revizionismulistoric. Werner Sobek (prin Institutul pentru StructuriUºoare ºi Design Conceptual, ILEK) – una dintre celemai importante voci care sprijinã o sinergie întrearhitecturã ºi inginerie, ºi care încurajeazã oarhitecturã a sinceritãþii structurale, inovaþieipermanente ºi responsabilitãþii ecologice – poateservi ca un exemplu în direcþia acestei medieri (Blaser& Heinlein, 1997; Blaser, 1999; Editors of Avedition,2008; Sobek, 2010). El nu este un propovãduitor altehnologiei digitale în sine, sau al hipercomplexitãþii


Deleuze’s work), describing episodes of contem-porary architecture historiography as some “topo-raphy” under change, simultaneously activated byrepetition (continuity, rear-guard) and difference(discontinuity, avant-garde).16 years after the issue of Differences – Topographiesof Contemporary Architecture (Sola-Morales, 1997[1995]), we are facing a same problem of mediationbetween repetition and difference. How could thetectonic culture production exemplified by Framptonand the digital tectonic culture advocated by Leachbe mediated at an aesthetic level, in the existing builtenvironment? At an ethic level, is architecture pushedto represent the complexity of society and thescientific field processes? Are digital media (planningand production) able to replace traditional means inless developed areas of the world and settle non-conflictual local problems without flattening thedifferences? Could traditional educational systems(based on continuity) coexist with those inspired bycybernetics (promoters of discontinuity) in a non-conflictual manner?A possible mediation might rely on the commonstarting points of the two visions: valuing thesubstantive act of materialization, appreciating somecommon historical models (Gothic architecture andcultural emancipation within the Modern Movement,Western case), structure relevance in relation toenvelope, inclination for ecology, historicalrevisionism. Werner Sobek (via the Institute forLightweight Structures and Conceptual Design, ILEK)– one of the most important voices to advocate somesynergy between architecture and engineering, andwho encourages an architecture of structuralsincerity, constant innovation and environmentalresponsibility – can serve as an example for thismediation (Blaser & Heinlein, 1997; Blaser, 1999;Editors of Avedition, 2008, Sobek, 2010). He is not apreacher of digital technology itself, or of iconic

iconice, ci un cercetãtor neostructuralist careregãseºte deopotrivã resurse ale continuitãþii (printradiþia arhitecturii gotice, a Miºcãrii Moderne ºi aunor personalitãþi precum Eiffel, Maillart, Nervi, FreiOtto, Mies van der Rohe...) ºi ale discontinuitãþii (prinorientarea spre noi tipologii, materiale ºi tipare deutilizare). Preocupãrile lui Sobek nu aparþin exclusivexplorãrilor avangardiste în direcþia urmãritã de GregLynn sau Karl Chu ºi nici ariergardei tectonice, ciexperimentãrii concrete, la scara 1/1, cu materiale,structuri, tehnici de producþie industrialã ºi tipologiinoi. El nu cautã forme în sine, ci rezolvãriperformante la probleme practice, cu un minim demijloace formale ºi un maxim de expresivitate,intersectând simultan ingineria, arhitectura, designulºi arta. Inovaþia porneºte de la legi fizice ºi de lacomportamentul materialelor. În acest sens, este opracticã reflexivã, o continuare criticã a unei aspiraþiia Miºcãrii Moderne, ºi unei mari tradiþii: Less is More...


hypercomplexity; he is a neostructuralist scientist whofinds resources of both continuity (through traditionof Gothic architecture, Modern Movement and somepersonalities such as Eiffel, Maillart, Nervi, Frei Otto,Mies van der Rohe ...) and discontinuity (throughorientation towards new typologies, materials andpatterns of use). Sobek’s concerns do not belongexclusively to either avant-garde explorations in thedirection followed by Greg Lynn and Karl Chu ortectonic rear-guard; it pertains to substantiveexperiment at a 1/1 scale including materials,structures, techniques of industrial production andnew typologies. He does not seek shapes themselves,but performing solutions to practical problems, usinga minimum of formal means and a maximum ofexpression, simultaneously crossing engineering,architecture, design and art. Innovation starts fromphysical laws and material behaviour. In this respect,it is a reflective practice, a critical continuation of onepursuit of the Modern Movement and a greattradition: Less is More ...


BBiibblliiooggrraaffiiee // BBiibblliiooggrraapphhyy

BLASER, Werner & HEINLEIN, Frank (1997), R 128 by Werner Sobek, Birkhäuser, Basel-Boston-Berlin.BLASER, Werner (1999), Werner Sobek: Art of Engineering – Ingenieurkunst, Birkhäuser, Basel-Boston-Berlin.CACIUC, Cosmin (2010), „Opoziþii: interviu cu Kenneth Frampton”, Arhitectura #87, sep. 2010: 96-103.DELEUZE, Gilles & GUATTARI, Félix (1999 [1991]), Ce este filosofia? trad. Magdalena Mãrculescu-Cojocea, Ed. Pandora,Târgoviºte.Editors of Avedition (2008), Werner Sobek: Light Works, Avedition, Ludwigsburg.FRAMPTON, Kenneth (1974) „On Reading Heidegger“ în Kate Nesbitt, ed., Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture:An Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965-1995, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1996: 440-446***(1983), „Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance”, in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays onPostmodern Culture. edited by Hal Foster, Bay Press, Port Townsen, 1983.*** (1990), „Rappel à l’ordre, the Case for the Tectonic”, în K. Nesbitt, ed., Theorizing a New Agenda, PrincetonArchitectural Press, New York, 1996: 518-529.*** (1996), Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture,MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.***(2007), Modern Architecture: A Critical History (World of Art), Thames & Hudson, London, Fourth edition.GUATTARI, Félix (1995 [1992]), Chaosmosis: an Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm trad. eng. Paul Bains & Julian Pefanis, IndianaUniversity Press, Bloomington.LEACH, Neil, David Turnbull & Chris Williams ed. (2004), Digital Tectonics, Wiley Academy, Chichester.SOBEK, Werner (2010), dosar, Arhitectura #82, martie 2010: 36-61.SOLÀ-MORALES, Ignasi de (1997 [1995]), Differences – Topographies of Contemporary Architecture, trad. engl. GrahamThompson, ed. Sarah Whiting, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

kenneth frampton vs. neil leach: continuitate ªi ... · frampton favours the cultural and...

Documents