Architecture Research /Arhitektura, raziskave Tectonics and the Grammar ofProgram /Tektonika in programskaslovnica 2025 9335779113145179235 CONTENTS / KAZALO Introduction Christopher Bardt Uvodnik Christopher Bardt Faber Tignarium: Gravity Unleashed Mark Jarzombek Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Nathaniel Coleman Alfred De Credico and the Tactility of Meaning The Thinning Space of ArchitectureAI Image Generation and the Reversal of DesignLogic Anne-Catrin Schultz GravitivityArchitecture’s Defiance in a Post-Structural Society Matej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik The Anonymous DetailThe Imaginative Effacement of John Hejduk’sMeasured Drawings James Williamson 259283303319359379407 To Err is Human Orsolya Gaspar Drifting PlatesTectonic Tools Nicholas Boyarsky What Lies Beneath the Surface Patrick Doan An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete ArchitectureA Case Study Into the Relational Character ofTectonics and Program When Transforming anExisting Building Anne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen Edvard RavnikarThe search for Architectural Authenticity Aleš Vodopivec Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete Robert McCarter Biographies Introduction Christopher Bardt Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt1Adolf Loos. “Architecture.” Neue Freie Presse(Vienna), 1910. Introduction Tectonics and the Grammar of Program If we were to come across a mound in the woods, six feet long bythree feet wide, with the soil piled up in a pyramid, a somber moodwould come over us and a voice inside us would say, “There issomeone buried here.” That is architecture.1 In Loos’s image, what makes the mound architecture is its indivisiblecoherence, presence and immanence, manifested in silent evocations oflife, death, truth, and mystery. The mound encountered by chance, in thewoods, is meaningful in its setting. Indeed, its setting is inseparable fromits meaning. Here, architecture presents as a singular phenomenon. But isit really so? The mound, the path, the woods, the proportions, geometry, the material: all are directly experienced, but are also comprehendedpoetically as a symbolically charged, emotionally, sensually embodied andintellectual complex grasped through recollection, associative references, grammar, and syntax—the language of architecture. For architecture to be meaningful, it must fulfill its double function assymbolic language and as a built phenomenon. Architecture’s ontological and epistemological entanglement with itsspatial, constructional, and historical contingencies and references isreflected in the topic at hand—the grammatical relations between tecton- ics and program. One cannot isolate the former from the latter, yet doingso may be a necessary prelude to gaining a better sense of their inter- twinement or, metaphorically speaking, their special way of “constructing” architecture. Classical Architecture, arguably, the most grammatical of all architec- tural movements, traces the relation between tectonics, program, and con- struction back to its roots embedded in the logic of construction. Therefinements of base, capitol, entablature, proportions, and so on all echoorigins in building, structure, gravity, durability, and the behavior of physi- cal material. The Greek temple’s transition from wood tectonics to stonestructures emancipated construction from the intrinsic joinery of woodassemblies transforming the wooden joists, pegs, and wedges of woodenantecedents into skeuomorphs of triglyphs, mutules, guttae, and metopesof the Doric frieze. The very act of freeing the tectonics of wood construc- tion from their utility, while continuing to deploy their appearances trans- formed construction into language and associated tectonics with the con- struction of both meaning and building. The architect is tied to the building process, not by direct action butat a distance that simultaneously liberates and blinds. Drawings and other Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt2Marc-Antoine Laugier. Essai sur l’architecture. Paris: Chez Duchesne, 1753. Introduction representations, while free of the restraints of gravity and structure, deletethe propelling realities of physical material that underpin tectonics. Sinceprojection drawing was adopted by the profession, architects have navi- gated the schism between representation and building through a gradualprocess of codifying the relation between building and drawing: essential- ly, building technique remained tacitly understood and controlled by thebuilder while the architect had authority over the form, geometry, andvisual language of building—that is, the grammar of tectonics. In addition, the architect took instrumental control of spatial organization—that is, program—empowered by the plan drawing. The precarity of the situationwas managed through stability: as long as architects worked somewhatwithin the norms of architecture and the builder built according to well- understood techniques, a certainty of outcome would be ensured. It wasonly natural, then, for post-renaissance construction to remain fundamen- tally static while architecture’s progress was limited to formal, stylistic, and decorative developments, focused on what was available for the archi- tect to articulate through drawing—namely, the grammar of program andbuilding tectonics. Tectonics in Architecture By the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the proliferation of formal rules, stylistic manipulations, ornamentation, and semantics, reduced to visualrepresentations, had undermined architecture’s cultural authority, whichhad been rooted in historical continuity, structural and constructionalintegrity, and an inherent stability that bestowed it timelessness. A returnto origins, to roots, was the cure, marking for many twentieth- century his- torians the emergence of modern architecture. European origin myths of architecture, from Marc-Antoine Laugier toGodfried Semper to Adolf Loos, shared a belief that architecture arosefrom a natural order. Laugier, in his Essai sur l’architecture,2 saw structureas the origin of architecture and called for the return to authentic buildingthrough recovering the essential elements of architecture: columns, beams, and pediments, reuniting formal elements with their original struc- tural purpose. His allegorical “primitive hut” (as the famous frontispiecerepresented ) underscored the origins of architecture as given by nature; tree trunks (columns), forks, and branches (beams ) providing for the mostprimitive of needs—shelter. Unironically Laugier saw nature bequeathingto primitive humans the means (tectonics) to protect themselves (pro- gram) from nature, no craft or skills required. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt3Gottfried Semper. The Four Elements of Archi- tecture and Other Writings. Translated by Har- ry F. Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989Originally published 1851. 4Online Etymology Dictionary, https://www.etymonline.com. Introduction In his book The Four Elements of Architecture, 3 Gottfried Semper makesan anthropological case for building origins arising from human activityrather than nature’s divine gifts. Unlike Laugier’s idea of the primitive hutas a tectonic re-imagining of nature, Semper’s “Caribbean Hut” proposedthat the social action (program) of gathering around a fire gave rise to theprimary, essential element of architecture: the hearth. The other three ele- ments follow logically; the hearth is set on a raised plinth or earthwork toprotect it from the ground and water; a woven enclosure is hung aroundthe gathering space/hearth to protect it from wind and animals; and final- ly, a roof is draped to shelter the fire from weather. While Laugier’s primi- tive hut manifests as an image, wholly formed, Semper’s is all process— the drawings of the Caribbean Hut are far more technical than allegorical. Here the subject of tectonics appears as a response to the program, a need addressed through available craft skills centered on materialprocesses. The fire/hearth is the purview of those skilled in ceramics andmetallurgy;, the textile walls made by weavers; the evolving roof advanc- ing both the skills of the weaver and carpenter; and the earth- work, masons. While both Laugier and Semper argued the authenticity of architec- ture is rooted in its origins as structure and construction, Laugier’s primi- tive hut is an abstraction, a representation, an archetype presumably hav- ing informed the design of the Greek temple. Semper’s hut is all fabrica- tion, craft, and material joinery. The etymology of “tectonics” follows simi- larly: the terms “context,” “pretext,” “subtle,” and “text” all allude to joining, weaving together in the abstract, dissociated from physical material. Tec- tonics is also rooted in *teks, meaning “to weave” as well as “to fabricate,” especially with an ax and “to make wicker or wattle fabric for (mud-cov- ered) house walls.” Here the physical and material conditions of weavingare at the forefront. In other etymologies, the craft and maker are the ori- gin: Sanskrit taksati meaning “he fashions,” “constructs,” and taksan, “car- penter”; Avestan taša meaning “ax, hatchet,” and thwaxš-, “be busy”; OldPersian taxš- meaning “be active”; Greek tekton, “carpenter” and tekhne, “art”; Old Church Slavonic tesla meaning “ax, hatchet”; Lithuanian tašau, tašyti, meaning “to carve.”4 As for the architect, as Laugier makes clear in his frontispiece, shepoints to the primitive hut but is not the maker; her role is as guide point- ing us to true building. The architect in Semper’s treatise is nowhere to befound, but is nevertheless etymologically nearby: the arche-tekton, the “chief carpenter,” fully versed in the art and craft of making. Only thearche-tekton has the broad capability and responsibility of synthesizingthe work of multiple trades that building entails. In both instances, the Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt5James J. Gibson. The Senses Considered asPerceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mif- flin, 1966. Introduction architect is still at a remove from the work, no longer homo faber but onewho slowly acquires instruments, not to build with but to direct, control, script, and envision the outcome of the building process. The “crisis” of architecture that led to the emergence of the modernmovement was a crisis of meaning. By the early twentieth century the nowsclerotic formal language of classical architecture was rendered irrelevantby Europe’s societal upheavals and the loss of the mytho-poetic dimen- sion of architecture as a means of contemplating the greater cosmic order. The symbolic language of tectonics, reduced to empty rhetoric, a “facade” of tired tropes detached from advances in building technology, hadbecome complicit in the unmooring of the language of architecture fromthe physical making of building, once again bringing into question the “what” of architecture and its sources of authenticity. Program in Architecture The idea of program in Laugier’s primitive hut is similar to what wascoined as “affordances” by psychologist James Gibson, referring to thepotential of an environment or element for use–as in stair, which “affords” ascending. 5 The trees in Laugier’s forest “afford” the making of a primitivehut; architecture “affords” and does not prescribe its uses. Semper’s ver- sion is the opposite: the act of gathering calls in programmatic needs andelements. The hearth, the wall, and other elements are made in responseto the need; program brings architecture into being. If we give some cre- dence to Laugier’s and Semper’s concepts, program both precedes and isdetermined (or afforded) by architecture, as Churchill’s famous maximunderscores: “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildingsshape us.” Until the recent past, program shared a language- like role with tec- tonics. The use of a room was understood culturally and symbolically morethan prescriptively, and it was generally accepted that the sequence, scale, and general spatial conditions would be sufficient to accommodate( or provide the “affordances”) for a range of uses/functions. The physicaland economical constraints of construction that limited early buildings tocertain arrangements of space tied activity/use to general conditions ofspace and vice versa. The continuous symbiosis and frictions betweenbuildings and human actions activated architecture as a symbolic and lan- guage-like discipline, whose value lay in bringing the logos of construc- tion together with the mythos of human existence. Architectural meaninglay in the semantics of architecture–in which tectonics inscribed anddescribed program—that is, the “public proclamation” and elevated cons- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt6Alva Noë. Varieties of Presence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Introduction truction from brute assembly to architectural language. Architecture itselfwas an inscription, a representation of the program as symbolic proclama- tion, the foreshadowing of its role in the constellation of worldly elementsbeing assembled into buildings and cities that revealed the larger andmysterious cosmic world order. Typologically, buildings were more strongly propelled by construc- tion, and only weakly associated with function, yet building type remaineda stronger predictor of use over time than any program of use. As long asarchitecture was the “form” of culture, program could be understood aswhat contemporary philosopher Alva Noë (paraphrasing Goethe) calls “frozen habit,”6 in which human actions are guided by the spatial arrange- ments of buildings (which in turn are tied to structural and constructionlogic) not prescriptively but implicitly and pre-reflective as the embodi- ment of symbolically understood “form”—not unlike how a fork is under- stood to be held “properly.” While tectonics was at the epicenter of the aforementioned modernsearch for an authentic relationship between building and architecture, program was under less scrutiny. Initially, there was little interest in revis- iting the relation between human activity and building organization. TheBehrens AEG Turbinenhalle was a turning point: celebrated for its authen- ticity, the building’s dramatic tectonic language was guided by the spatialuniformity and tectonic logic of the daylit steel and glass bays which mir- rored its Taylorist factory program dedicated to homogenous and continu- ous production spaces. The new modern architecture eventually came tofundamentally rethink program as an “unfrozen” spatial condition, anda new grammar of program ensued as the idea of movement and theunbounded continuity of space were adopted as the new fundamentals ofarchitecture. The conflicts between methods of building construction and the spa- tial concepts of modern architecture sparked a period of unprecedentedinvention. The demand of the new program of architecture—unboundedcontinuity of space, stripped of weight, gravity, or any references to tradi- tional construction—was a wellspring for architecture because it conflictedwith construction, which remained bound to the laws of physics andnature. The new spatial program could be projected, drawn on paper, where conveniently gravity and mass were absent. But to build, say, a floating space, meant architecture had to operate symbolically betweena new grammar of program and grammar of tectonics, which manifesteda feeling of floating space. When Mies designed the Barcelona pavilion, every detail was designed with the erasure of gravity in mind: the extrud- ed chromed cruciform columns (reflections dissolve mass), supporting an Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt7In Gaston Bachelard, On Poetic Imaginationand Reverie. Edited by Collette Gaudin. Put- nam, CT: Spring Publications, 2014, 89. 8Dalibor Vesely. Architecture in the Age ofDivided Representation: The Question of Cre- ativity in the Shadow of Production. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004, 97. 9Ibid, 106. Introduction impossibly thin horizontal roof (it was only thin at the visible edge), a ceil- ing of equal luminosity as the floor (the direct sun on the travertine floormatched the reflectively lit white ceiling). The grammar of these detailsgenerated the experience both phenomenally and intellectually—one can “read” the suprematist composition as well as experience the unboundedspace and Boustrophedonic movement of the pavilion. The “rub” between tectonics and program are not dissimilar to the “rub” between words in poetry. When words resist a prosaic reading, theycome alive to their neighbors—potentially transmitting/evoking newinsights. Consider this translated excerpt from “Poisson,” a poem byPaul Éluard: Water is soft and movesonly for what touches itThe fish proceedslike a finger into a glove7 Architecture’s cultural importance lies in its presence, which cannotbe reduced to the legible aspects of the grammar of program or the gram- mar of tectonics, though both play critical roles in the grasping ofarchitecture’s meaning and significance. When program and tectonicsgenerate poetic tensions—even contradictions—associations, bothmetaphoric and symbolic, multiply and densify architectural meaning. TheBarcelona pavilion’s dematerialized and abstracted space is contradictedby its opulent materials yet the overall effect is one of unity and imma- nence, not one architecture as a representation that must be read or deci- phered. Dalibor Vasily observed: “It is not the representation but what isrepresented that matters— and what is represented is always a world thatthe work of art reveals and articulates, at the same time contributing to itsembodiment. We have already seen that Architecture is not as crucial inexplicitly articulating the world as in embodying and implicitly articulatingit.” 8 “Taking them together,” he added, “we see the silence of embodimentis also to a certain extent also a voice of articulation. It is only under theseconditions that we can understand the language and the cultural role ofArchitecture.” 9 Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt Introduction What, then, does architecture articulate? At minimum, architecture isa palimpsest of self -inscription into the world, articulating the imaginingof how we live and might live, which plays a critical role in our being-in- the-world. The grammar of program ideally gives agency for life to beinscribed into architecture, which depends on an open symbolic grammaras poetry is “open” to interpretation. It is the same with tectonics. The playbetween representations of construction and actual construction demandan “open” condition in which the symbolic nature or culture of buildingis revealed. A small detail serves as an example. The brickwork of Frank LloydWright’s Robie House is manipulated to accentuate the horizontal. Fromthe choice of elongated Roman bricks, to choosing brick-colored mortarexclusively for the vertical joints, to raking the light-colored mortar of thehorizontal joints, the tectonic logic of the brickwork symbolically and liter- ally joins with and builds the spatial horizontality of the house. The Digital Influence Digital tools and building techniques—widely insinuated to represent get- ting the same job done but in a better “way”—have had unintended conse- quences for architecture. The digitization of the practice of architecturehas changed not only the design process but also the ways in which archi- tecture is conceived. The shift from projection drawings and physical mak- ing to digital models as the locus of design decisions has vastly simplifiedthe making of complex formal compositions and like any technology at itsinception, the sheer ability to do something never before possible hasbecome the “means justifying the ends.” Digital tools, by their nature, gen- erate a homogenous datascape architecture—an architecture incapable ofregistering the profound and complex symbiosis between program andtectonics arising from the challenges of joining, seaming, intersecting, andcolliding architectural assemblages and materials. In short, digitaldesign/ fabrication/installation has successfully bypassed the interpretivecomponent between design and construction and thus has negated thetectonic grammar, craft, and human sensibility that has made architecturea meaningful cultural activity. Tectonics, which I have discussed as literally and symbolically repre- senting the techne of building, is being displaced by the technological sys- temization of buildings. Rather than attention to architectural languagearising from putting disparate elements together, much of large-scalebuilding design is focused on evidence- based design (EBD) and digitalmanagement and coordination of technological systems, including roof Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt Introduction assemblies, facades, synthetic material systems, circulatory and mechani- cal devices. Contemporary architectural projects are more often aimed atachieving measurable performance- based outcomes, which diminishesthe immeasurable, non-quantifiable—that is, meaningful— architecturalquestions at hand. In the digital era, the grammar of program has transformed froma more interpretive spatial language that the imagination could inhabitand inscribe itself into something more prescriptive and inflexible. Thepressures on architecture to perform/function as precisely as any machinehave only increased with the adoption of digital tools—since they, if notpromise, insinuate a greater degree of precision both of the physical arti- fact and its exacting fulfillment of the programmatic brief. This short-cir- cuits the necessary exchanges between program, tectonics and inhabita- tion wherein each redefines the another—an essential part of any designprocess. Program is no longer something that arises from and defined byits architecture, but became something external to architecture thatdemands transposition and performance compliance. As a consequence, program is increasingly at odds with architecture’s capacities and witharchitecture’s potential to re-imagine inhabitation. Program today is moredirective—“to cause to be automatically regulated in a prescribed way” (asthe call for this special issue of AR notes), which reduces programmaticflexibility and often paradoxically results in a self-fulfilling “failure” because space gets “mis-used,” that is, it doesn’t conform to the externalwritten programmatic demands made on architecture without includingspatial and tectonic considerations in the defining of program. There is a troubling contradiction between the prescriptive nature ofcontemporary architectural programs and the supposed celebration offreedom and individual volition. The current tendency to fear space—morespecifically, unregulated space—has led directly to the overcontrol ofspace, which manifests as overprogramming, overprescribing, and over- proscribing, intolerant of provisional or opportunistic uses. Architecturaltolerance is both a spatial and material value: spatial tolerances anticipateand helps one imagine the possibilities of human relations extended to thesocial body. The grammar of program is culturally valuable because itsconnotative role in architecture keeps open the interpretation of programand actions and thus the potential for self-inscription. Architecture’s generative role in affording and inscribing human aspi- rations is colliding with the culture of technologically determined, data- driven, and evidence- based design. In materials, tolerances are the intelligent and sensible anticipation ofphysically joining dissimilar physical things. The formal homogeneity fost- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt Introduction ered by digital tools extends to fabrication, where digital productionprocesses almost invariably minimize tolerances for deviation, movement, and differential material behavior. Optimization has supplanted meaningas the goal of design, which can be observed in building details computa- tionally resolved—such as the complex intersection of two parts, which aremade into the digital dream of seamless smoothness, effacing the gram- mar of relations between tectonic and program. The erasure of material tolerances goes beyond joinery. The relent- less efforts by the building industry to duplicate the appearance of materi- als with synthetic replacements is symptomatic of a greater effort to trans- form the immaterial digital realm into its physical replica. New syntheticmaterials strip away the inconvenience of material behavior and the toler- ances necessary to handle that behavior. The digital realm, within itsexclusively ocular environment, denies presence, umwelt, character, change, tone, and atmosphere, the ambience which renders the languageof architecture meaningful. It’s as if the constructed building is not thework of “the first order” (to use Ezra Pound’s term), but rather is a repre- sentation of the “perfect” digital model and its attendant renderings, which have now become the primary work of architecture. The gains achieved by digital tools have occluded the losses, thegreatest being the loss of reciprocity between maker, material, and spacein the architectural design process. A willful methodology, made moreconfident with data, is supplanting the quiet process of reiterativeexchange, associative reasoning, and metaphorical insight that has longnourished and centered the relation between program and tectonics asarchitectural language. Since the nineteenth century, the attempt to turnarchitecture into a science—from Durand to behavioralism to parametrics—has been fueled by the idea that architecture can and should bereframed as reductive logic and now, in the digital age, data. Not onlydata, but data with an ultimate aim of predictability. The fear and suppres- sion of sensibility, paradox, the odd, strange, accidental, the unknown, theunpredictable has become not a bug of digital tools but a feature. The grammar of program and tectonics in this context shares theconnotatively indeterminate and unstable aspects of language, whichparadoxically is one of the stabilizing aspects of architecture that allows, for instance, the transformation of an old factory into new housing, ora Greek temple to articulate stone details that evoke an eidetic memory ofwooden joinery. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt10Martin Heidegger. “The Origin of the Work ofArt.” In Basic Writings. Edited by David FarrellKrell, revised and expanded edition. San Fran- cisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. Introduction Architecture and Resistance By contrast the temple work in setting up a world, does not cause thematerial to disappear but rather causes it to come forth for the veryfirst time and to come into the open region of the work’s world. Therock comes to bear and rest and so first becomes rock; metals cometo glitter and shimmer, colors to glow, tones to sing, the word to say. All this comes forth as the work sets itself back into the massivenessand heaviness of stone, into the firmness and pliancy of wood, intothe hardness and luster of metal into the brightening and darkeningof color, into the clang of tone and into the naming power of theword.10 Heidegger contrasts “world” with “Earth,” the former being what we physi- cally articulate and the latter the physical reality that stands in contrast orresistance to our articulations of the world. Articulation and resistance, inHeidegger’s thinking, combine to make meaning or more precisely tobring the Greek term Alethia, which can be translated as “truth,” “uncon- cealedness,” “disclosure,” or “bringing into presence.” In other words, articulation needs resistance to be meaningful. Artists are fully aware ofthis and have continued to use their respective physical medium(s) as thebasis for their work. Architects, in contrast, have almost completelyembraced the shift from physical media (paper, pencil, ink, wood, chip- board, etc.) to digital software, leaving behind resistance and focusingexclusively on articulation. Buildings, in getting built, recover resistance, not in relation to articu- lation, but as a problem to be managed and “smoothed” away. The result isincreasingly specialized and inflexible buildings devoid of the meaningthat arises from articulation in conversation with resistance. Digitally conceived buildings clad in synthetic materials are, concep- tually, “forever” buildings, providing no or almost no allowance for thepatinas of time (such as Wabi Sabi), and finally achieving what early Euro- pean modernism dreamt about—an eternal present. An unconscious fearof aging, of deterioration, of decay, of change, motivates the erasure of thetemporal dimension of buildings and with it the idea of building as a com- plex, evolving cultural project in which the past is tied to the future by thearchitectural language of program and tectonics. For example, the shiftfrom wood to stone in Greek temples generated a new language of archi- tecture that mediated and absorbed the constructive change from the pastwhile providing a means of articulating architecture into the future. Inshort, tectonic and program grammar allows architecture to evolve with Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt Introduction time, independently of its being prone to the obsolescence of “forev- er” technology. Digital tools in and of themselves are not the problem; rather, theproblem lies in the shift away from long-held values and understanding ofarchitecture a shift those tools have subtly influenced. As a cultural project, architecture has endured because its authentic- ity and meaning derives from the non-fixed relation between its symbolicand physical content, enabled by the interdependent grammar of tectonicsand program. Contemporary academic discussions about program andtectonics show signs of resistance to the relentless technological logic ofcontemporary architecture: the cheeky pop-up; social- and environmentaljustice- framed programs; a yearning for the hand to be involved in mak- ing; the interest in biophilia; re-adoption of natural renewable materials; a return to craft and materiality; All these are, in themselves, critiques ofthe brittleness of technology and its inevitable and rapid obsolescence. Architecture has the latent capacity to reconcile technological advanceswith the human condition, to be guided by empathy and place specificconditions without ignoring data and technology. But that requiresa return in many respects to timelessness and meaning, pre-modern val- ues in which the grammar of program and tectonics play a central role. Iffrom here on architecture can recover timelessness and meaning, it mayturn out to be our discipline’s greatest value to culture, providing therecord of and the means for society to understand the world as it is and toimagine it as it might be. Uvodnik Christopher Bardt Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt1Adolf Loos. »Architektur « (1910), iz: Trotzdem, Prachner, Dunaj 1982. Objavljeno v zbornikuOikos in Drugo, o Loosu in Witgensteinu, Krt1988, prevedla Mojca Dobnikar. Neue FreiePresse (Vienna), 1910. Uvodnik Tektonika in programska slovnica »Ce v gozdu naletimo na gomilo, šest cevljev dolgo in tri cevlješiroko, z lopato oblikovano v piramido, se zresnimo in nekaj v nasnam pravi: tu je nekdo pokopan. To je arhitektura.«1 V Loosovi prispodobi gomila nastopa kot arhitektura zaradi svoje nedeljivepovezanosti, prisotnosti in imanence, ki se kaže v tihih evokacijah življe- nja, smrti, resnice, in skrivnostnosti. Gomila, ki smo jo po nakljucju zagle- dali v gozdu, je pomenljiva v kontekstu, v katerega je postavljena. Ta kon- tekst je dejansko nelocljiv od njenega pomena. Arhitektura tu vznika kotenkratni pojav. Pa je res? Gomila, pot, gozd, razmerja, geometrija, material– vse je del neposredne izkušnje, obenem pa je dojeto v svojem poeticnemsmislu, s svojim simbolnim nabojem, kot custveno in cutno utelešen inte- lektualni skupek, ki ga dojamemo prek spomina, asociacij, slovnice in sin- takse – torej govorice arhitekture. Da bi bila arhitektura pomenljiva, mora izpolniti svojo dvojno funkcijosimbolne govorice in grajenega objekta. Ontološka in epistemološka prepletenost arhitekture z njenimi pro- storskimi, konstrukcijskimi in zgodovinskimi slucaji in sklicevanji se odražatudi v tokratni témi – slovnicnem razmerju med tektoniko in programom. Prve ne moremo lociti od drugega, pa vendar bi bilo to morda potrebno, dabi lažje razumeli njuno prepletenost ali, ce uporabim prispodobo, njun spe- cificen nacin “gradnje” arhitekture. Klasicna arhitektura, ki naj bi bila najbolj slovnicna od vseh arhitek- turnih gibanj, sledi razmerju med tektoniko, programom in gradnjo vse donjegovih korenin v logiki gradnje. V izboljšavah podstavkov, kapitelov, ogredij, razmerij, in tako dalje, odmeva njihov izvor v gradnji, konstrukciji, težnosti, trajnosti in obnašanju fizicnega materiala. Na poti, ki jo je grškitempelj prehodil od lesenih do kamnitih konstrukcij, se je gradnja osvobo- dila svojih lesnih spojev, tramovi, zatici in klini iz lesenih prednikov pa sodobili novo življenje kot posnemovalci (skeuomorfi) v obliki triglifov, mutu- lov, kapelj (gut) in metop v dorskem frizu. Prav ta osvoboditev tektonikelesene konstrukcije od njene uporabnosti ob hkratnem ohranjanju njenegavideza je gradnjo preoblikovala v govorico, tektoniko pa povezala z gra- dnjo pomena in stavbe. Arhitekt(ka) je povezan(a) s procesom gradnje, ne sicer neposrednodejavno, temvec z razdalje, ki obenem osvobaja in slepi. V risbah in drugihreprezentacijah, kjer ne veljajo omejitve težnosti in konstrukcije, je realnazmogljivost fizicnega materiala, na katerem sloni tektonika, izbrisana. Odkar je stroka risanje projekcije vzela za svoje, se arhitekti prebijajo Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt2Marc-Antoine Laugier. Essai sur l’architecture. Paris: Chez Duchesne, 1753. 3Gottfried Semper. The Four Elements of Archi- tecture and Other Writings. Translated by Har- ry F. Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Prvic objavljeno 1851. Uvodnik skozi shizmo med reprezentacijo in gradnjo v procesu postopnega kodira- nja odnosa med gradnjo in risbo: v osnovi je tehnika gradnje implicitnosodila pod nadzor graditelja, arhitekt pa je bil pristojen za formo, geome- trijo in vizualno govorico stavbe – torej za slovnico tektonike. Poleg tega jeimel arhitekt kot tisti, ki je risal nacrte, kljucni nadzor nad prostorsko orga- nizacijo oz. programom. Negotovost položaja je uravnavala stabilnost: dokler so arhitekti delovali v okviru arhitekturnih norm, graditelji pa gradiliskladno s tehnikami, ki so jih dobro poznali in razumeli, je bila zagotovlje- na gotovost rezultata. Povsem razumljivo je torej, da je postrenesancnagradnja ostala v temelju staticna, medtem ko je bil napredek arhitektureomejen na razvoj form, slogov in dekorativnih elementov, zato je bil osre- dotocen na to, kar je arhitekt lahko artikuliral z risbo – namrec slovnicoprograma in tektonike stavbe. Tektonika v arhitekturi Do 18. in 19. stoletja je razmah formalnih pravil, slogovnih manipulacij, ornamentike in semantike, zvedenih na vizualne reprezentacije, spodkopalkulturno avtoriteto arhitekture, ki je bila utemeljena v zgodovinski kontinu- iteti, strukturni in konstrukcijski celovitosti, in njej lastni stabilnosti, ki ji jezagotavljala brezcasnost. To je popravila šele vrnitev k njenemu izvoru, h koreninam, kar je po mnenju številnih zgodovinarjev 20. stoletja zazna- movalo nastanek moderne arhitekture. Evropskim mitom o izvoru arhitekture, od Marca- Antoina Laugierja doGodfrieda Semperja in Adolfa Loosa, je skupno prepricanje, da je arhitek- tura nastala iz naravnega reda. V svojem Essai sur l’arhitecture2 je Laugierizvor arhitekture prepoznal v konstrukciji in zahteval vrnitev k avtenticnigradnji prek prevzemanja bistvenih elementov arhitekture: stebrov, gred inpedimentov, ter formalne elemente znova povezal z njihovo izvorno kon- strukcijsko funkcijo. Njegova alegoricna »primitivna koca« (kot je prikaza- na na slavnem frontispicu) je poudarjala izvor arhitekture kot necesa, karje dala narava; drevesna debla (stebri), rogovile in veje (tramovi) zadovo- ljujejo najosnovnejšo potrebo, kar jih je – zavetje. Laugier je brez ironijev naravi prepoznal silo, ki primitivnemu cloveku predaja sredstva (tektoni- ko), s katerimi se lahko zašciti (program) pred naravo, ne da bi za to potre- boval posebne rokodelske spretnosti ali vešcine. V svoji knjigi Štirje elementi arhitekture3 je Gottfried Semper antropo- loško razložil izvor gradnje kot nekaj, kar ni vec božanski dar narave, tem- vec izhaja iz clovekove dejavnosti. Ce je Laugierjeva primitivna koca tek- tonsko osmislila naravo, je Semperjeva 'karibska koca' v družbenem deja- nju (programu) zbiranja ob ognju prepoznala zacetek primarnega, bistven- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt4Online Etymology Dictionary, https://www.etymonline.com. Uvodnik ega elementa arhitekture: ognjišca. Ostali trije elementi si logicno sledijookoli ognjišca; to je postavljeno na zemeljni nasip, ki ga šciti pred vplivi talin vode; pletena ograda, obešena okrog zbirališca/ognjišca ga šciti predvetrom in živalmi, streha, ki pokriva zavetišce, pa daje ognju zaklon predvremenskimi vplivi. Ce se Laugierjeva primitivna koca kaže kot celostnooblikovana podoba, je Semperjeva proces – risbe karibske koce so precejbolj tehnicne kot alegoricne. Tektonika tu nastopa kot odziv na program, potrebo, ki zahteva razpoložljive rokodelske vešcine, osredotocene namaterialne procese. Ogenj oz. ognjišce je v pristojnosti tistih, ki so vešcidela s keramiko in metalurgije, tekstilni zidovi so delo tkalcev, v nastajajo- ci strehi pa vešcine združita tkalec in tesar; zemljin nasip je delo zidarjev. Tako Laugier kot Semper sta avtenticnost arhitekture prepoznalav njenem izvoru v konstrukciji in gradnji, vendar je bila Laugierjeva primi- tivna koca abstrakcija, prezentacija, arhetip, na katerem naj bi temeljilazasnova grških templjev. Pri Semperjevi koci gre nasprotno za izdelavo, rokodelstvo, in spajanje materialov. Podobni logiki sledi etimologija »tek- tonike «: izrazi 'kontekst', 'pretveza', 'subtilen' in 'tekst' namigujejo na spa- janje, prepletanje v abstraktnem, loceno od fizicnega materiala. Besedatektonika ima svoj izvor tudi v korenu *teks, ki pomeni »tkati «, pa tudiizdelovati, najpogosteje s sekiro, ter »izdelovati pleteno tkanino iz šib inprotja za (z zbito zemljo prekrite) hišne zidove «. Tu so v ospredju fizicni inmaterialni pogoji tkanja. V drugih etimologijah sta njena izvora rokodel- stvo in izdelovalec: V sanskrtu taksati pomeni »on oblikuje «, gradi; taksanpa pomeni »tesar«; taša v Avesti pomeni »sekira «, thwaxš- pa »biti zapo- slen«; staroperzijski koren taxš- pomeni »biti aktiven «; grška beseda tek- ton opisuje »tesarja « in tekhne »umetnost «; beseda tesla v stari cerkvenislovanšcini pomeni »sekira «, litovska beseda tašau, tašyti pa »vrez(ov)ati«4. A ce pogledamo arhitektko na Laugierjevem frontispicu, ki s prstomkaže na primitivno koco, takoj vidimo, da je ni naredila sama; nastopav vlogi vodicke, ki nas usmerja k pristni gradnji. V Semperjevi razpraviarhitekt( ka) sicer ne nastopa, a vseeno ostaja etimološko blizu: arche-tek- ton, »prvi tesar«, ki popolnoma obvlada umetnost in vešcino izdelovanja. Samo archi-tekton ima širšo sposobnost in odgovornost združevati delorazlicnih obrti, ki sodelujejo pri gradnji. V obeh primerih je arhitekt ševedno locen od dela, ni vec homo faber, temvec nekdo, ki zlagoma zbirainstrumente – ne zato, da bi gradil, temvec da bi usmerjal, nadzoroval, zacrtal in si zamišljal rezultat procesa gradnje. »Kriza « arhitekture, ki je vodila k nastanku modernizma, je bila krizapomena. Do zacetka dvajsetega stoletja je tedaj že okorela formalna govo- rica klasicne arhitekture sprico družbenih pretresov v Evropi in zaradi Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt5James J. Gibson. The Senses Considered asPerceptual Systems. Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1966. Uvodnik izgube mitopoeticne dimenzije arhitekture kot sredstva razmišljanja o viš- jem vesoljnem redu izgubila svoj nekdanji pomen. Simbolna govorica tek- tonike, zvedena na prazno retoriko, »fasado « zlajnanih tropov, ki se jih teh- nološki napredek v gradbeni industriji ni dotaknil, je postala sokriva za to, da je arhitekturna govorica izgubila svoje mesto v fizicni izdelavi stavbe, kar je znova postavilo pod vprašaj »kaj« je arhitektura in »kaj« so izvorinjene avtenticnosti. Program v arhitekturi Predstava o programu v Laugierjevi primitivni koci je podobna temu, kar jeJames Gibson imenoval »afordance « (affordances), s katerimi opisujepotencial okolja oz. elementa za uporabo, kot na primer stopnica, ki omo- goca (affords) vzpon.5 Drevesa v Laugirjevem gozdu »omogocajo « izdela- vo primitivne koce; arhitekt »omogoca « in ne predpisuje njene rabe. Sem- perjeva verzija je ravno nasprotna: dejanje zbiranja je neposredno poveza- no s programskimi potrebami in elementi. Ognjišce, zid in drugi elementiso narejeni zaradi potrebe; program omogoca nastanek arhitekture. Cesprejmemo veljavnost Laugierjevih in Semperjevih konceptov, je programpred arhitekturo, obenem pa ga ta doloca (oz. omogoca), podobno kot jenekoc poudaril Churchill: »Najprej mi oblikujemo stavbe, nato pa našestavbe oblikujejo nas.« Do nedavnega sta imela program in tektonika enako, govorici podob- no vlogo. Uporaba prostorov je bila bolj kot nekaj predpisanega, razumlje- na simbolno in kot nekaj kulturno dolocenega, in splošno prepricanje jebilo, da bodo zaporedje, merilo in splošni prostorski pogoji omogocili (ozi- roma zagotovili »afordance « za) razlicne rabe oz. funkcije. Fizicne infinancne ovire, ki so omejevale gradnjo prvih stavb na dolocene ureditveprostora, so dejavnost/rabo zvezale s splošnimi prostorskimi pogoji inobratno. Stalna simbioza in trenja med stavbami in clovekovim delovanjemso arhitekturo aktivirala kot simbolno disciplino, podobno govorici, ki jebila pomembna, ker je logos gradnje povezala z mythosom cloveške eksi- stence. Arhitekturni pomen je izhajal iz semantike arhitekture (v kateri jetektonika zapisovala in opisovala program), tj. iz »javne razglasitve «, inpovzdignil gradnjo od robatega sestavljanja v arhitekturno govorico. Samaarhitektura je bila vpis, reprezentacija programa kot simbolne razglasitve, napoved njene vloge v konstelaciji tosvetnih elementov, ki se sestavljajov stavbe in mesta ter razkrivajo vecji in skrivnosten vesoljni red. S tipološkega vidika je stavbe v vecji meri poganjala gradnja, funkcijapa je imela pri tem zgolj manjšo vlogo; vseeno je stavbni tip ostal uspe- šnejši pokazatelj rabe skozi cas kot katerikoli program rabe. Dokler je bila Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt6Alva Noë. Varieties of Presence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Uvodnik arhitektura »oblika « kulture, je lahko program nastopal kot tisto, karsodobni filozof Alva Noë (ko parafrazira Goetheja) imenuje »zamrznjenanavada «6, kjer so prostorske ureditve stavb (ki so dolocene s strukturno inkonstrukcijsko logiko) tiste, ki implicitno (in ne preskriptivno) usmerjajoclovekova dejanja in so kot utelešenje simbolno razumljene 'forme' predrefleksijo – podobno kot je samoumevno, kako se 'pravilno' drži vilico. Medtem ko je bila tektonika v središcu prej omenjenega modernegaiskanja avtenticnega odnosa med stavbo in arhitekturo, je bil programdeležen manj pozornosti. Sprva so se le redki posvecali odnosu med clove- kovim delovanjem in organizacijo stavbe. Prelomnica je bila Behrensovatovarna turbin AEG, ki je navduševala s svojo avtenticnostjo; njena silovitatektonska govorica je temeljila v prostorski enovitosti in tektonski logiki, kije izhajala iz steklene fasade z jeklenim ogrodjem, skozi katero je v stavboprodirala dnevna svetloba in v kateri je odseval tayloristicno organiziranprogram tovarne, namenjen homogenim, zaporednim proizvodnim prosto- rom. Nova moderna arhitektura je scasoma temeljito spremenila razume- vanje programa, ki postal »odmrznjen « prostorski pogoj, temu pa je, ko stabili kot nova temelja arhitekture sprejeti ideja gibanja in neomejena konti- nuiteta prostora, sledila nova programska slovnica. Trenja med nacini gradnje stavb in prostorskimi koncepti modernearhitekture so spodbudila celo obdobje neslutene domiselnosti. To, kar jezahteval novi program arhitekture, – neomejena kontinuiteta prostora, osvobojenega teže in težnosti ter kakršnegakoli sklicevanja na tradicional- no gradnjo – je bilo neusahljiv vir naviha za arhitekturo prav zato, ker jebilo v nasprotju z gradnjo, ki je ostala zavezana zakonom fizike in narave. Novi prostorski program se je dalo projicirati, narisati na papir, kjertežnost in masa na sreco nista prisotni. A zgraditi, na primer, lebdec pro- stor, je pomenilo, da je morala arhitektura simbolno manevrirati med novoprogramsko slovnico in slovnico tektonike, s cimer je prikazala obcutjelebdecega prostora. Ko je Mies snoval barcelonski paviljon, je prav vsakdetajl oblikoval z mislijo na izbris težnosti: ekstrudirani križni stebri so kro- mirani (odsevi razblinjajo maso); na njih sloni nemogoce tanka ravna stre- ha (tanka samo na vidnem robu); strop je tako svetel kot tla (neposrednasoncna svetloba na tleh, obloženih s travertinom, se ujema z belim stro- pom, v katerega se odbija). Slovnica teh detajlov je ustvarila pojavno inintelektualno izkušnjo – opazovalec lahko »razbere « suprematisticno kom- pozicijo ter obenem doživi izkušnjo neomejenega prostora in bustrofedon- skega gibanja paviljona. »Trk« med tektoniko in programom je podoben »trku« med besedamiin poezijo. Ko se besede uprejo prozaicnemu branju, zaživijo ob svojih Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt7V: Gaston Bachelard, On Poetic Imaginationand Reverie. Uredila Collette Gaudin. Putnam, CT: Spring Publications, 2014, 89. (Voda jemehka, odmika se / samo tistemu, kar se jedotika // Riba gre / kot prst v rokavico) 8Dalibor Vesely. Architecture in the Age of Divi- ded Representation: The Question of Creativityin the Shadow of Production. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004, 97. 9Ibid, 106. Uvodnik sosedah, kar jim daje moc posredovati/prebuditi nova spoznanja. Lep pri- mer je angleški prevod pesmi »Poisson « Paula Éluarda: Water is soft and movesonly for what touches itThe fish proceedslike a finger into a glove7 Kulturni pomen arhitekture je v njeni prisotnosti, ki je ni mogoce zre- ducirati na berljive vidike programske slovnice ali slovnice tektonike, ceprav imata obe kljucni vlogi pri dojemanju smisla in pomena arhitekture. Ko program in tektonika ustvarjata poeticne napetosti (ali protislovja), seasociacije, tako metaforicne kot simbolne, množijo in zgošcajo arhitekturnipomen. Dematerializirani abstrahirani prostor paviljona v Barceloni jev protislovju z razkošjem materialov, ki so bili uporabljeni zanj, a celotakljub temu daje vtis enotnosti in imanence, in ne arhitekture kot reprezen- tacije, ki jo je treba razbrati ali dešifrirati. Dalibor Vasily je povedal: »Negre za reprezentacijo, temvec za to, kar je prezentirano – to pa je vednosvet, ki ga razkriva in artikulira umetniško delo, ki obenem prispeva k nje- govemu utelešenju. Videli smo že, da pomen Arhitekture ni toliko v tem, daeksplicitno artikulira svet, temvec v tem, da ga utelesi in implicitno artiku- lira.” 8 »Ce pogledamo oboje skupaj, « je dodal, »vidimo, da je molk uteleše- nja do neke mere tudi glas artikulacije. Samo pod temi pogoji lahko razu- memo govorico in kulturno vlogo Arhitekture. «9 Kaj torej artikulira arhitektura? Arhitektura je najmanj palimpsestsamo- vpisovanja v svet, ki izraža zamišljanje tega, kako živimo in kako bilahko živeli, kar ima kljucno vlogo pri našem bivanju v svetu. V idealnemprimeru daje programska slovnica življenju moc, da se vpiše v arhitekturo, za to pa je potrebna odprta simbolna slovnica, saj je poezija »odprta « in sijo lahko vsak razlaga po svoje. S tektoniko ni nic drugace. Igra med repre- zentacijami gradnje in dejansko gradnjo zahteva »odprt« pogoj, v kateremse razkriva simbolna narava oziroma kultura stavbe. Kot primer vzemimo majhen detajl. Opeke na hiši Robie Franka Llo- yda Wrighta so položene tako, da poudarjajo horizontalo. Tektonska logikapolaganja opek, od samega izbora podolgovatih rimskih opek do izbora Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt Uvodnik barve malte, ki je bila za vertikalne spoje opecnata in svetla za horizontal- ne, simbolno in dobesedno gradi prostorsko horizontalnost hiše in se sta- plja z njo. Vpliv digitalizacije Digitalna orodja in gradbene tehnike – za katere se na splošno trdi, daopravljajo enako delo, a bolje – so nenamerno spremenile arhitekturo. Digitalizacija arhitekturne prakse ni spremenila le procesa oblikovanja, temvec tudi nacine snovanja arhitekture. Premik od risanja projekcij infizicne izdelave k digitalnim modelom kot lokusu oblikovalskih odlocitev, jemocno poenostavil ustvarjanje kompleksnih formalnih kompozicij, in takokot ob vsakem prihodu nove tehnologije, je tudi zdaj zgolj možnost nareditinekaj, kar prej ni bilo mogoce, postala »sredstvo, ki upravicuje cilj.« Digi- talna orodja že po naravi ustvarjajo homogeno arhitekturo podatkovne kra- jine – arhitekturo, nezmožno zaznati globoko in kompleksno simbiozo medprogramom in tektoniko, ki izhaja iz izzivov povezovanja, spajanja in križa- nja asemblažev in materialov ter trkov med njimi. Skratka, digitalnooblikovanje/ izdelovanje/namešcanje je uspešno obšlo interpretativnokomponento, ki povezuje oblikovanje in gradnjo, s tem pa negiralo slovnicotektonike, obrtništvo in cloveško rahlocutnost, zaradi katere je arhitekturapomenljiva kulturna dejavnost. Tektoniko, za katero ugotavljam, da dobesedno in simbolno predsta- vlja techne stavbe, je izrinila tehnološka sistematizacija stavb. Pozornostdo arhitekturne govorice, ki izhaja iz spajanja povsem razlicnih elementov, je v oblikovanju stavb velikega merila vecinoma nadomestilo projektiranje, utemeljeno na dokazih (evidence- based design, EBD) ter digitalno upra- vljaje in usklajevanje tehnoloških sistemov, vkljucno s strešnimi konstruk- cijami, fasadami, sistemi umetnih materialov ter mehanskimi napravami insistemi prehajanja med prostori. Sodobni arhitekturni projekti so veckratnaravnani k doseganju merljivih rezultatov, ki se ocenjujejo glede na ucin- kovitost, to pa zmanjšuje pomen zastavljenih arhitekturnih vprašanj, ki sonemerljiva, kolicinsko nedolocljiva in torej pomenljiva. V digitalni dobi je programska slovnica kot prostorska govorica, kidopušca razlicne razlage in daje prostor domišljiji, postala nekaj normativ- nega in togega. S prevzemom digitalnih orodij so se pricakovanja, da moraarhitektura delovati tako natancno kot vsak drug stroj, dodatno zaostrila, saj digitalna orodja, ce že ne zagotavljajo, vsaj obljubljajo vecjo natanc- nost tako fizicnega predmeta kot njegovega natancnega izpolnjevanja pro- gramske naloge. To ovira nujne izmenjave med programom, tektoniko inbivanjem, ki omogocajo, da ti vzajemno na novo opredeljujejo en drugega, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt Uvodnik kar je bistveni del vsakega oblikovalskega procesa. Program ni vec nekaj, kar izhaja iz arhitekture, obenem pa ga ta opredeljuje, temvec je postalnekaj zunanjega arhitekturi, kar zahteva preobrazbo in skladnost z meriliucinkovitosti. Posledicno je program vse bolj neskladen z zmožnostjo arhi- tekture in njenim potencialom, da si na novo zamisli bivanje. Danes je pro- gram bolj usmerjevalen – »povzrociti samodejno regulacijo na predpisannacin « (kot je zapisano v pozivu k oddaji prispevkov za pricujoco številkoAR) – njegova prožnost pa je zaradi tega toliko manjša, zato pogosto para- doksalno konca kot samoizpolnjujoc »neuspeh «, saj je prostor uporabljen »narobe «, ker se ne prilagaja zunanjim zapisanim programskim zahtevam, postavljenim arhitekturi, ne da bi se pri opredeljevanju programa upošte- vali prostorski vidiki in tektonika. Med preskriptivno naravo sodobnih arhitekturnih programov indomnevnim povelicevanjem svobode in posameznikove volje obstaja skrbvzbujajoce protislovje. Strah pred prostorom, – ali nereguliranim prosto- rom, ce smo natancni, ki trenutno prevladuje, je neposredno kriv za preti- rani nadzor nad prostorom, viden v prekomeren programiranju ter prešte- vilnih predpisih in prepovedih, ki ne prenašajo zacasnih ali priložnostnihrab. Toleranca v arhitekturi je tako prostorska kot materialna vrednota: prostorske tolerance predvidevajo in posamezniku omogocajo zamišljanjemožnosti medosebnih odnosov v razširjenem kontekstu družbenega tele- sa. Programska slovnica je kulturno pomembna, ker njena konotativna vlo- ga v arhitekturi razpira interpretacijo programa in delovanja, s tem papotencial za samo-vpisovanje. Generativna vloga arhitekture, ki omogoca in vpisuje clovekova hote- nja, je v navzkrižju s kulturo tehnološko dolocenega, s podatki opredelje- nega in na dokazih utemeljenega oblikovanja. V kontekstu materialov, tolerance pomenijo inteligentno in smiselnopricakovanje fizicnega združevanja medsebojno razlicnih fizicnih stvari. Formalna homogenost, ki jo zagotavljajo digitalna orodja, velja tudi zaizdelovanje, kjer postopki digitalne produkcije skoraj brez izjeme minimizi- rajo tolerance za odstopanja, gibanje in razlicno obnašanje materialov. Optimizacija je izpodrinila pomen kot cilj oblikovanja, kar je vidno v racu- nalniško rešenih detajlih stavb (npr. v kompleksnih stikih dveh delov, izve- denih kot digitalne sanje o brezhibni gladkosti), ki brišejo slovnico odno- sov med tektoniko in programom. Izbris materialnih toleranc presega zgolj izvedbo spojev. Vztrajna pri- zadevanje gradbene industrije, da bi poustvarila videz materialov z umetni- mi nadomestki, je simptom širših prizadevanj preobraziti nematerialnodigitalno sfero v njeno fizicno repliko. Z novimi umetnimi materiali odpade- jo nevšecnosti, ki jih povzrocajo obnašanje materialov in tolerance, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt10Martin Heidegger. “The Origin of the Work ofArt.” V: Basic Writings. Ur. David Farrell Krell, prenovljena in razširjena izdaja. San Franci- sco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. Uvodnik potrebne za njegovo obvladovanje. Digitalni svet v svojem izkljucno oku- larnem okolju zanika prisotnost, umwelt, znacaj, spremembo, ton, inatmosfero, vzdušje, ki daje arhitekturni govorici njen pomen. Kot da zgra- jena stavba ne bi bila delo »prvega reda« (ce uporabim izraz Ezre Pounda), temvec reprezentacija »popolnega « digitalnega modela in njegovih upo- dobitev, ki so zdaj postale osnovno delo arhitekture. Prednosti digitalnih orodij so skrile, kar je bilo zaradi njih izgubljeno, v prvi vrsti izgubo vzajemnosti med izdelovalcem, materialom in prostoromv procesu arhitekturnega oblikovanja. Vztrajna metodologija, ki je s podat- ki postala še bolj samozavestna, izpodriva tihi proces ponavljajocih seizmenjav, asociativnega sklepanja in metaforicnih uvidov, ki je dolgo ohra- njal in središcil odnos med programom in tektoniko kot arhitekturno govo- rico. Od 19. stoletja dalje poskuse spremeniti arhitekturo v znanost – odDuranda do behaviorizma do parametrike – poganja ideja, da se arhitektu- ro da in mora preoblikovati v reduktivno logiko, danes, v digitalni dobi, pav podatke. Ne zgolj podatke, temvec podatke, katerih koncni cilj je predvi- dljivost. Strah pred obcutljivostjo, protislovjem, nenavadnim, cudnim, nakljucnim, neznanim, nepredvidljivim in zatiranje tega zdaj ni vec zgoljhrošc, ki moti delovanje digitalnih orodij, temvec njihova lastnost. V tem kontekstu ima slovnica programa in tektonike enake konotativ- no nedolocene in nestabilne vidike jezika, prav to pa je, paradoksalno, eden od vidikov, ki arhitekturo stabilizirajo; omogoca na primer preobraz- bo stare tovarne v nov stanovanjski objekt, ali pa obdelavo kamnitih detaj- lov v grškem templju, ki prebudijo eidetski spomin na lesne spoje. Arhitektura in odpor Ravno obratno je pri templju, ki vzpostavlja svet, v katerem materialne izgine, temvec sploh prvic stopi v ospredje, v odprto polje svetatega dela. Kamen tu nosi in sloni ter tako najprej postane kamen; kovine zasijejo in se zaleskecejo, barve zažarijo, toni zapojejo, besedespregovorijo. Vse to stopi v ospredje, ko se delo umakne v masivnostin težo kamna, v cvrstost in voljnost lesa, v trdoto in blesk kovine, vsvetljenje in temnenje barv, v zvenenje tonov in poimenovalno mocbesede.10 Heidegger razlikuje med »svetom « in »Zemljo«, s tem da je svet to, karfizicno artikuliramo, Zemlja pa je fizicna realnost, ki nasprotuje oz. se upiranašim artikulacijam sveta. Artikulacija in odpor po Heideggerju skupajustvarjata pomen, oz. prinašata to, cemur so stari Grki rekli aletheia, karlahko prevedemo kot »resnica «, »neskritost «, »razkrivanje « ali »narediti Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt Uvodnik prisotno «. Z drugimi besedami, da bi bila pomenljiva, artikulacija potrebujeodpor. Umetniki to vedo, zato svoja dela še vedno ustvarjajo s fizicnimimediji. Za razliko od njih, so arhitekti skoraj v celoti sprejeli digitalni pre- hod od fizicnih medijev (papirja, svincnika, lesa, iverke, ipd.) k programskiopremi ter se odpovedali odporu, da bi se osredotocili izkljucno naartikulacijo. Stavbe si s tem, ko so zgrajene sicer povrnejo odpor, a ne v razmerjudo artikulacije, temvec kot problem, ki ga je treba rešiti in »obvladati «. Posledicno so stavbe vse bolj specializirane in neprilagodljive, oropanepomena, ki izhaja iz artikulacije v obcevanju z odporom. Digitalno zasnovane stavbe, odete v umetne materiale, so (konceptu- alno) »vecne « stavbe, ki ne oz. komaj dopušcajo casu, da bi jih zaznamo- val s svojo patino (kot Wabi Sabi), saj so koncno dosegle to, o cemer jesanjal zgodnji evropski modernizem – vecno sedanjost. Podzavesten strahpred staranjem, propadanjem, razkrojem, spremembami, krepi željo poizbrisu casovne dimenzije stavb, s tem pa tudi idejo o stavbi kot komple- ksnem, razvijajocem se kulturnem projektu, v katerem se preteklost nave- zuje na prihodnost z arhitekturno govorico programa in tektonike. Prehodod lesa h kamnu v grških templjih je na primer izoblikoval novo arhitektur- no govorico, ki je posredovala in sprejela konstruktivne spremembe iz pre- teklosti, obenem pa zagotovila možnosti artikuliranja arhitekture za priho- dnost. Ce povzamem, slovnica tektonike in programa omogoca arhitekturi, da se razvija s casom, neodvisno on njene izpostavljenosti zastarelosti »vecne « tehnologije. Digitalna orodja sama po sebi niso problem; problem je odmik od tra- dicionalnih vrednot in razumevanja arhitekture, ki so ga neopazno povzro- cila prav ta orodja. Arhitektura kot kulturni projekt še vedno vztraja, saj njena pristnost inpomen izhajata iz ne-trdno dolocenega odnosa med njeno simbolno infizicno vsebino, ki ga omogoca soodvisna slovnica tektonike in programa. Sodobne akademske razprave o programu in tektoniki kažejo znake odpo- ra do nepopustljive tehnološke logike sodobne arhitekture: predrzni pop- up; programi za družbeno in okoljsko pravicnost; hrepenenje po ustvarja- nju z rokami; zanimanje za biofilijo; vracanje k uporabi naravnih obnovlji- vih materialov; vrnitev k rokodelstvu in materialnosti. Vse našteto je samopo sebi kritika krhkosti tehnologije ter njene neizogibne in bliskovitezastarelosti. Arhitektura ima skrito sposobnost, ki ji omogoca usklajevatitehnološki napredek s clovekovo izkušnjo bivanja, dopušcati, da jo usmerjaempatija, in postavljati specificne pogoje ob hkratnem upoštevanju podat- kov in tehnologije. To pa v vec pogledih zahteva povratek k brezcasnosti inpomenu, pred-modernima vrednotama, v katerih je imela osrednjo vlogo Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramChristopher Bardt Uvodnik slovnica programa in tektonike. Ce si bo arhitektura lahko znova zagotovi- la brezcasnost in pomen, bi to prav lahko bil najdragocenejši prispeveknaše discipline kulturi, ki bi podal razvid o družbi ter ji omogocil razumetisvet, kakršen je, in si predstavljati, kakšen bi lahko bil. Faber Tignarium: Gravity Unleashed Mark Jarzombek Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek1Theodor Adorno, Minima moralia, Translatedfrom the German by E. F. N. Jephcott (NewYork: Verso,1974), 155. 2Semper, Gottfried, Über die bleiernen Schleud- ergeschosse der Alten: und über zweckmäs- sige Gestaltung der Wurfkörper im Allge- meinen; ein Versuch die dynamische Entste- hung gewisser Formen in der Natur und in derKunst nachzuweisen, (Frankfurt am Main, Ver- lag für Kunst und Wissenschaft, 1859), p. 4. [translation by author] For a full discussion ofSemper’s ideas see: Wolfgang Herrmann, Got- tfried Semper: In Search of Architecture (Cam- bridge MA, The MIT Press, 1984). 3John Kersey, Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum: or, a general English Dictionary (London: J. Wilde, 1708). See also, for example: LeonhardChristoph Sturm, Architektonisches Bedenkenvon der protestantischen Klein Kirchen (Archi- tectural Reflections on the Form and Arrange- ment of Protestant Churches (Hamburg: Ben- jamin Schillern, 1712 and 1718). 4Karl Otfried Müller, Handbuch der Archäologieder Kunst (Handbook of the Archaeology ofArt, 1830), 4. 5Johann Christoph, “Architekt,” Grammatisch- kritisches Wörterbuch der HochdeutschenMundart (Leipzig: Johann Gottlob ImmanuelBrietkopf, 1781). Faber Tignarium: The ungenuiness of the genuine stems from its need to claim, in a societydominated by exchange, to be what it stands for yet is never able to be.1 Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life Gotfried Semper, in 1859, wrote that the Greeks “were able to enliven theirtectonic whole [tektonischen Gebilde] with something quasi- organic.” 2 Whatdoes he mean by ‘tectonic whole’? The word tectonic references back, ofcourse, to ancient Greek wood workers who were mostly associated with thebuilding of ships and temples. But in this case, it is not the origin of the wordthat is significant, but its more contemporary usage as it was a relatively newconcept as an offspring of the word architectonic. That word had beenaround for about a hundred years or so and was informally associated withthe look and feel of a building as a whole or with large-scale matters of mass- ing and plan disposition. 3 An English dictionary from 1708 defined architec- tonic as that which “builds a thing up regularly according to the nature andproperties of it.” Immanuel Kant even used it as a metaphor for mastery andcontrol with a huge impact on subsequent aesthetic theorizing. Karl OtfriedMüller's Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst (Handbook of the Archaeologyof Art, 1830) used Architektonik in the Kantian sense to describe buildingswhere the whole and its parts worked together to create an art object [Kunst- form] that was grounded “in a general set of rules that appear as mathemati- cal relationships or as organic life forms [Lebensformen]. 4 But Müller also used the stand-alone word Tektonik to describe themore intimate processes of making, primarily by woodworkers, but also byother craft specialists. Till then Tektonik had been an relatively esoteric termand does not appear in Johann Christoph’s Wörterbuch from 1781.5 Müller'suse of the word was thus significant, especially since it helped focus on whatwe might call the processes of making. He envisioned those as a legitimatecategory of theorization. If Architektonik pointed to mental operations, Tek- tonik pointed to corporeal ones. But Semper added a twist when we referenced a ‘tectonic whole’. Theconvention at the time would have been ‘architectonic whole.’ By implicitlyremoving the prefix archi-, or, in reverse by shifting the word ‘whole’ awayfrom ‘architectonic’ to ‘tectonic,’ in essence combining the meanings of thetwo words — architectonic and tectonic — he challenged the separation ofidea over body that was more or less a truism in European thinking eversince Aristotle and that was implied in Müller’s aesthetics as well as inKant’s philosophy. What prompted this tour-de-force? When Semper was writing, con- struction drawings as we understand them today – and which were hardlyever used before the 19th century — had begun to become important for even Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek6In fact, in the book, Über die bleiernenSchleudergeschosse der Alten, Semper doesnot discuss word-working but metal smithing. The book discusses the making of thealmond-shaped, lead slingshots that wereused by soldiers and that had been recentlyrecovered in archaeological sites. In studyingthe mathematics of the forms, he is followingideas that he expressed elsewhere about thenature of art, which he expressed as a ‘scien- tific’ equation : Y = F (x, z, t, v, w, .) Y standsfor the “General Result.” F stands for “the exi- gencies of the work of industry or art in itself, which are based upon certain laws of natureand of necessity which is the same at alltimes and under every circumstance.” Theseexigencies are represented as x, y, z, t, v, w, the “many different agents, which worktogether in a certain way.” Semper, in settingup this equation is purposefully leaving a lotof room for interpretation, but his main goal isto avoid the hard-and-fast mind-hand distinc- tion where one is active and the other pas- sive. Instead, we have an interplay of exigen- cies, which are dynamic, and laws of naturewhich are unchanging. See: Semper, “GeneralRemarks on the Different Styles in Art,” Lon- don Writings 1850–1855, Edited by MichaelGnehm, Sonja Hildebrand, Dieter Weidmann( Zurich, gta Verlag, 2021), 119–120. See theexcellent paper. Sonja Hildebrand, “Mathema- tische Kurven in der Architekturtheorie um1850: Gottfried Semper, David Ramsay Hayund die Ästhetik der invisible curves desParthenon,” Figurationen. Gender – Literatur – Kultur (Böhlau Verlag, 2020) 57 – 76. 7Semper, Ibid, 5 8Christoph, Wörterbuch, Column 761. Similarly, in John Kersey, Dictionarium Anglo-Britan- nicum: or, a general English Dictionary (Lon- don: J. Wilde, 1708) architect is defined as “master builder, a survey of a building.” Faber Tignarium: the most prosaic of details, given that many of the low wage workers on theconstruction site had little training in the trades. Since the ancient Greek tek- tones did not operate with plans or drawings, Semper was making the case forwhat we today might call an architecture without – or perhaps before — architects. Semper imagined that the relationship between designing andbuilding back then was more seamless or, in his words, ‘organic.’ There was, in his view, no modern alienation of mind and body and its translation intodesign from construction. 6 The monuments of the Greeks, he argued, arespecial “since they were not constructed by mechanical means alone or madesimply from working drawings, but exist as if they ‘are grown’ by a ‘mysteri- ous organic law,’” one that he called Lebenskraft [life force].7 There was another equally pressing issue for Semper that had to do withthe distinction between architect and contractor. Unlike today, back in theearly 19th century, the distinction was still quite fluid. In fact, Christoph’s dic- tionary defines Baumeister [Literally: building master] not just as the personwho both understands and executes the Baukunst [the art of building], but as “an architect.” In other words, there was for Christoph no real point of differ- ence.8 To make matters worse, in France, Jean-Nicolas- Louis Durand, whowas a professor of architecture at the École Polytechnique in Paris wrotea book, Précis des leçons d'architecture données ŕ l'Ecole Polytechnique (1802– 5), that made it easy for any engineer to design even the largest of buildings. Every plan was reduced to a grid. Today, we might give the book the title, Roman Architecture for Dummies. Though a lot of ink has been spilt on the definition and theorization of ‘tectonics’ we must remember that it is first and foremost a neologism, bornas a protest against the emergence of a heartless, and for Semper, mindless, industrial world. It was an argument about rupture and repair. In otherwords, Semper wanted to impose the relevance of a historical consciousness– and its associated package of erudition and theorization — to the makingof architecture that is modelled, ironically, on a pre-architectural and pre-lit- erate sensibility. What we thus see in Semper’s writings – though Müller andothers are implicated in this as well — is the birth of what we today wouldidentify as Eurocentrism, the moment when the European cultural classsought to invent, define, and enforce Europe’s deep history – in this case bygoing back to the Greeks — as a way to challenge the perceived superfluidityof modernity. But for Semper, unlike other Hellenophiles, to access thatworld he had to split the Greek word architecture into its component parts, a rupture in the name of the ‘organic’ to make a concept that was detachedfrom architecture’s fluid, but intractable, interconnections with the world ofthe ambitious Baumeister and engineer, and, of course, their thought- less clients. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek9Plutarch, Life of Pericles, Modern Library edi- tion (New York: Random House, 1984), 191–2. 10It is clear from Greek texts that tektones werenot always woodworkers. Some were certainlyskilled in ancillary trades. And there can beno doubt that as their work load diminishedthey moved to other trades. The word itselfbecame more general over time. With Homer, it meant a skilled ship builder, but by the timeof Aristotle, it begins to mean skill in general. Faber Tignarium: Semper probably did not fully realize that the word architecture was itselfa neologism, though its neologistic status, even today, has hardly ever beenadequately theorized. The word came into play only around the late 6th orearly 5th century BCE during the period of the modernization of the templebuilding site, meaning that there is an uncanny parallel to the early 19th cen- tury situation encountered by Semper, but in reverse. For centuries, templeshad been made by tektones using skills that were handed down from father toson. The change from wood to stone happened extraordinarily quickly in thespan of almost a single generation. The Temple of Apollo at Corinth, con- structed ca. 540 BCE was among the first. From there, it only took a hundredyears for the Greeks to develop the extraordinary skills that went into themaking of the Parthenon. With the change-over, construction sites becamecomplicated places bringing into play a vast array of skills and services. Plutarch’s description of the building of the Parthenon in Athens is an aston- ishing read, even today: The materials were stone, brass, ivory, gold, ebony, cypresswood; andthe arts or trades that wrought and fashioned them were smiths andcarpenters, moulders, founders, and braziers, stone-cutters, dyers, goldsmiths, ivoryworkers, painters, embroiderers, turners; those againthat conveyed them to the town for use, merchants and mariners andship-masters by sea, and by land, cartwrights, cattle-breeders, waggoners, rope-makers, flaxworkers, shoe makers and leather-dressers, road-makers, miners. And every trade in the same nature, as a captainin any army has his particular company of soldiers under him, had itsown hired company of journeymen and laborers belonging to it bandedtogether as in array, to be as it were the instrument and the body for theperformance of the service.9 As Plutarch makes clear at the end of the quote, the journeymen and laborerswere merely soldiers in the service of the larger project, meaning that thedesign process of a Greek temple was anything but ‘organic.’ And tragicallyfor the tektones, though temples were famously meant to look like woodentemples, the skill of wood working was no longer needed. The only thing leftof real wood in these temples were the rafters. The 19th and 20th century lit- erature of Greek architecture is so enamored of the fact that Greek templespreserved their wooded heritage in replica form, that the disappearance ofthe tektones from the building site is left unremarked. 10 A modern day paral- lel would be when the newspaper typesetters were ‘phased out’ due to theintroduction of the computer in the 1970s. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek11Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2008), 22. 12In the Statesman 258e (c. 360 BCE), the con- versation comes around to téchne. Platodescribes two types of téchne. One is produc- tive and the other theoretical (gnostic), “call- ing the one practical, and the other intellectu- al.” As an example of the “practical,” Platomentions the wood worker or tektonicos( te.t......). As an example of the “theoreti- cal” he mentions the arche-tekton (....- t..t..), the reason being that the latterplaces things in order, and so in that sense, Plato argues, is not unlike what a statesmandoes, though the latter works purely in theworld of governance. 13Imy-r k.t would be pronounced ‘imir-kat’. There was also an Overseer of All RoyalWorks (.my-r k.t nbt nt nzwt; pronounced: imir-kat-nebet-nt-nut). There was, of course, no such position in ancient Greece. Faber Tignarium: Richard Sennett noted that something was afoot when he observed that “ifthe artisan was celebrated in the age of Homer as a public man or woman,” byclassical times, namely by the time of the Parthenon “the craftsman’s honorhad dimmed.”11 But Sennett’s perspective is too narrow and he misses the factthat we see by classical times a whole new person, the arche-tekton, celebrat- ed by none other than Plato who used the job description of the recentlyminted arche-tekton as the model for a statesman. 12 Why not? Buildinga temple, as Plutarch made so clear, is an index of a thriving and well-man- aged economy. There is an uncanny and perhaps even real link betweenPlato’s arche-tekton / stateman and Kant’s "architectonic of pure reason." Bothadmired the skill of managing complexity, Plato as a political project, Kant asa philosophical one. The Greeks could have used the Egyptian word ‘building- overseer.’ Afterall, that job description goes back to the 3rd millennium BCE, and it is almostcertain that the Greeks learned about all of this, including the use of stone, through their military and trade contacts with the Egyptians. 13 But theGreeks, in their rush to modernize their construction industry were nevergoing to introduce a ‘barbaric’ Egyptian word into their language. They sim- ply added the prefix arche (first, leader, principle) to the old word tekton. And so, a word was born that is now so ubiquitous that its historical, rupturalresonances have long since been washed away. But just because the word arche – tekton existed, the difference betweenarchitect (as we understand it today) and chief contractor was not clarifiedeven by the time of Semper. The issue was first exposed by Leon BattistaAlberti who asked, How does the presumptive architect – the maker of thedesign — separate himself from the upstart, and culturally unsophisticatedbuilder who might well be called an architect? For Alberti, the answer hinged on the fact that the architect had to notonly understand this novel thing called Roman history, but also had to beable to convey the esoteric design realities of that unique brand of historicismto the noble class through a combination of writings and drawings. To readand to make presentation drawings was something that very few builders atthe time could do with any proficiency. In De re aedificatoria (writtenbetween 1443 and 1452), Alberti also writes: Before I go any farther, however, I should explain exactly whom I meanby an architect; for it is no carpenter (tignarium fabrum) that I wouldhave you compare to the greatest exponents of other disciplines: thecarpenter (fabri) is but an instrument (instrumentum) in the hands ofthe architect. Him I consider the architect, who by sure and wonderfulreason and method, knows how to devise both through his own mind Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek Faber Tignarium: and energy, and to realize by construction, whatever can be mostbeautifully fitted out for the most noble needs of man, by the movementof weights and the joining and massing of bodies. I inserted the Latin to make sure that we understand that the translation oftignarium fabrum and later fabri should not be ‘carpenter.’ Instead, thosewords should be translated as ‘contractor’ or ‘construction manager.’ Albertialso uses the word ‘discipline’ very precisely to convey the fact that if archi- tecture was to be a field it would have to possess ancient texts that allowedthe architect to enter to and engage with the literate, aristocratic class. Sohere, in this quote, the tone of the word architecture changes. If before, thecontractor- architect continuum could be seen as part of the natural evolutionof the modernization of the building site toward increasing complexity, now, with Alberti, the word has a violent inner life that brings out of hiding theimplication of the word’s origins. Alberti wanted to finish what the Greekshad started in elevating mind over matter and by elevating literacy over illit- eracy. And by literacy, I mean not just the capacity to read, but the capacity tounderstand the value of Roman and Greek culture to the upper classes. Sosignificant was this that proficiency in Greek and Latin was a hallmark ofa good education and social status among the upper and middle classes inEngland well into the 19th century. Though Alberti wanted this break between the architect and the con- tractor to be absolute, his theory was more fantasy than reality. The greatarchitects who built the cathedrals and palaces of Siena, Florence, Milan, andVenice were all master builders most of whom came to architecture late inlife. Some started as painters or as masons. Brunelleschi started his career asa goldsmith. Palladio, whose real name was Andrea di Pietro della Gondola, who was nominally literate, started his career as a humble stone carver. Hisname would have been lost to history had not his wealthy, humanist client, Gian Giorgio Trissino, ‘discovered him’ and even invited him on a trip toRome to measure Roman details for his villa. Trissino, however, did not wantto be seen as slumming it with a laborer, so he gave the man a fancy newname, Palladio, derived from the Greek goddess Pallas Athena and a charac- ter in a poem. Palladio, thus refashioned and coached by his mentor, lived upto expectations. I quattro libri dell'architettura (The Four Books of Architec- ture), first published in 1570, which consisted of a text and accompanyingdrawings of Roman details and their proportions, was the instrument bywhich the architect – as a cultured person — performs his elevation overthe contractor. Today, of course, the distinction between architect and contractor isa legal one, even though it still disguises a the old cultural one. When Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek14Johann Christoph, “Architekt,” Grammatisch- kritisches Wörterbuch der HochdeutschenMundart (Leipzig: Johann Gottlob ImmanuelBrietkopf, 1781), Column 423. 15The cleaving of the word tekton from the wordarchitecture works better in German thanEnglish. Architektonisch means somethingslike a well-made and well-ornamented whole. To remove the ‘archi-’ and leave only tek- tonisch was to evoke the idea of an evendeeper form of ‘wholeness’. Faber Tignarium: I recently rebuilt my barn, even though the contractor did everything, he wasrequired by law to have a licensed architect make the drawings that have onthem in big words: “These renderings are for illustrative purposes only,” meaning they are not construction drawings. But as a matter of reality, backin the 19th century, the Baumeister still had the upper hand. In Germany, theLatin word architectus referred mostly to the designers / builders of churchesand cathedral buildings. Though it was a word that implied status, it was nota term with deep theoretical implications. In fact, a German dictionary from1781 has the comment under the heading “architect” that it is a “fully unnec- essary word,” probably in reference to its Greek pretensions. The better word, it states, is Baumeister. 14 So when Semper detached the tekton from arche, it was meant to givethe appearance of a liberation of the detail-maker (and by extension thedetail-drawing) from the magisterial, but presumably alienated gaze of theBaumeister — contractor – engineer who, given monetary constraints, waswell inclined to think of details as ‘off-the-shelf.’15 Semper imagined a non- arche world where the detail was not just a dull construction drawing. Thesemiotic violence – the violence of the word that also applied to the word – was, for Semper, an unfortunate necessity to get the architect to imagine anunviolated whole and therewith instrumentalize his control over the wholeprocess of design. For Semper, if the emerging discursive distinction betweenarchitectonic and tectonic needed to be erased, its parallel, the cultural andclass distinction between architect and contractor, needed to be enforced. Inother words, the theorizing of ‘tectonics’ was grounded in a contradictionabout the status of the architect in the modern world. The culturally sophisti- cated architect on the one hand, and the laborer, guided by a custom- madedrawing, could outflank the dull and dimwitted contractor. The defenders of modern- day tectonics are, therefore, not out to trulyfree the proverbial builder from the rulership of the uncultured contractor. Almost to the contrary, they want to force the builder to follow the mandatesof a higher sensibility, the results of which are supposed to be aestheticallypleasing to the ‘wholeness’ of the design just as much as they may be practi- cal. Kenneth Frampton in 1995 re-affirmed this mandate when – in recastingSemper’s notion of the ‘organic’ — he championed the tectonic as the placewhere architecture can most effectively challenge the ostensibly, scenographicsuperfluidities of “global modernism.” The primary principle of the autonomy of architecture resides in thetectonic rather than the scenographic: that is to say this autonomy isembodied in the revealed ligaments of the construction and in the wayin which the syntactical form of the structure explicitly reveals the Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek16Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture( Cambridge MA, The MIT Press, 1995), 377. 17According to Mitchell Schwarzer, tectonics is “a rejection of any ideology of blind progressor global homogenization.” Mitchell Schwarzer “Tectonics of the Unforeseen,” ANY: Architec- ture New York 1996, No. 14, TectonicsUnbound: Kernform and Kunstform Revisited! (1996), pp. 62–65. See also: Kenneth Framp- ton, "Rappel a l'ordre: The Case for the Tec- tonic," Architectural Design 60, no. 3–4 (1990). Reprinted in Frampton, Labour, Work. andArchitecture (London: Phaidon, 2002), 99. 18Wolfgang Herrmann, Gottfried Semper: InSearch of Architecture, (Cambridge, The MITPress, 1984), 144. 19According to Mitchell Schwarzer, tectonics is “a rejection of any ideology of blind progressor global homogenization.” Mitchell Schwarzer “Tectonics of the Unforeseen,” ANY: Architec- ture New York 1996, No. 14, TectonicsUnbound: Kernform aand Kunstform Revisit- ed! (1996), pp. 62–65. Faber Tignarium: action of gravity…The tactile and the tectonic jointly have the capacityto transcend the mere appearance of the technical in much the sameway as the place-form has the potential to withstand the relentlessonslaught of global modernism.16 The idea of a tectonic modernity as a form of resistance (still related bydefault to academic, upper class sensibilities) to capitalism has by nowbecome implicit in the meaning of the word.17 So if we think back toAlberti’s put-down of the builder as a mere instrumentum, it becomes clearthat tectonics in this sense does not want to liberate the builder from thearche, but rather to empower the architect over the contractor even more. Tectonics allows the architect to borrow down into the design process to thelevel of ‘making.’ From that point of view, tectonics requires the outsideagency of guilt as enforcement. Karl Bötticher, whose chief work is the "Tek- tonik der Hellenen" (Architectonics of the Greeks; 1844–52), wrote that It is in the nature of things that this simple law will restrain anysubjective and arbitrary desire to cover the core-form haphazardly withsymbols...The essence and idea of a structural part prohibit arbitrarydecoration and do not allow one to deal with the decorative elements asone pleases. (emphasis by author)18 Buildings are not meant to be put together through the abstract determina- tions of reason or by aesthetically illiterate builders. There has to be a cus- tom-tailoring of the parts.19 Ornaments and their associated details had toexist, as Bötticher would phrase it, in a living relationship to the whole, a ‘whole’ that was endangered by the very people who made it. But unlike the arche who learns about the discipline through books, stu- dio classes, exams and other sources, tectonics has no particular disciplinarygrounding. It is, as Semper implied, supposed to be ‘organic’ meaning that itis produced magically from the inside of a culture. In other words, unlikewhen we say the word architecture and obviously assume that architects gettheir position through a process of learning [i.e. enforced through the mech- anisms of a discipline], when we say tectonic, there is no clear socio-episte- mological equivalent. And just as there is no ‘school of tectonics’ there is alsono category of laborer that corresponds to it. The tekton, the actual person inhistorical time, is of no interest to Semper. Not only is he a cultural imagi- nary, he is purposefully placed outside of the orb of the contractor- builders asan unattainable abstraction that when it does finally reach the constructionsite can only be sustained and implemented through the armature of a dis- tant, moral control that, if anything, is not ‘organic.’ Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek 1 1Frank Lloyd Wright, Marin County Civic Center(1957). Photo by author Faber Tignarium: This leaves us with a paradox. Tectonics is an aesthetics, but one that is sup- posedly not shallow; a way of detailing, but one that is not about the reality ofconstruction; a way of knowing, but one that cannot be found in books; a way of building, but without a corresponding set of laborers. At stake in this conversation is not how an imagined Hellenic, dignity- of-labor (albeit without laborers) can be used as leverage against the unruly, superficial, industrialized world of today, but rather the role of tectonics / tekton in the play of disciplinary signifiers. If anything, the tekton todaymight seek to free itself from the compulsions of good ‘tectonic’ behavior, whether imposed on it from within (either in the form of unreflective tradi- tion) or from without (as in the form of ‘good design’). The point is not tomake the unconscious of the tekton speak through some imagined aesthetic- of-purity, but to locate it as a sometimes disturbing force in architecture’s dis- ciplinary landscape. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Marin County Civic Center (1957) rightlydeserves a place in history books [ 1 ]. But there is one spot that is never dis- cussed. In designing the external colonnades, Wright apparently faceda quandary. Instead of doing a more regular column, Wright decided to floatthe column and have it rest precariously along the flank of a ‘rock’ that riseslike a mini-monolith from the walkway as it were some natural feature. It isa steel column, but it seems to be made more of wood than metal, lookingvery much like a gilded 2X4. Wright added an elegant slopping capital totransition to the arch. From the side, the capital is off-center to the line ofgravity descending from the arch to create a disturbing and almost dangerouslooking situation, made even more pronounced when the column hits the ‘rock’ along its outward facing slope. These columns do not fall in line withthe conventions of tectonics as they not only want to look like they defy grav- ity, but they also defy the material properties of their constituting elements: concrete and steel. They even defy the constructional principle set out by thebuilding itself. They are a curiosity and a flourish, but also a puzzle to be fig- ured out. There is no clear picture of the genesis of Frank Lloyd Wright’s column, but there is, of course, a dotted line that can be drawn back to Art Deco andeven further back to Art Nouveau. Art Nouveau, in particular, had littlepatience for gravitational realism and an associated ascetics of laconic mini- malism that underlies much of what we call tectonics. Perhaps one can citethe entrance to La Maison Cubiste at the Salon d'Automne, 1912 with itsasymmetries, chamfered surfaces and gravity defying elements [ 2 ]. Compare the Wright columns with a those in the Borre Skodvin’sMortensrud Church in Oslo (2002), which I would venture to say better con- form to the conventions associated with tectonics [ 3 ]. There, a large rock Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek 2 3 4 2La Maison Cubiste at the Salon d'Automne, 1912. Raymond Duchamp-Villon, 1912 3Mortensrud Church, Oslo (2002) 4Contractor house, California. Photo by author. Faber Tignarium: protrudes into the space. The architects shifted the columns to accommodateits girth tilting them to emphasize the rock’s location in the design. It is with- out doubt an example of subtle contextualism. The columns speak very open- ly of the work that they need to do to adjust for the intrusion of the rock. Butcompared to the columns at the Marin County Civic Center, these do not lib- erate the structure from its dutifulness. On the contrary. The columns, eventhe angled ones, are pronouncedly Doric and masculine. Unlike the columnsof the Marin County Civic Center, which are, one can say, experimental, theones in Mortensrud Church are comfortably ensconced in the Hellenic, European sensibilities. Perhaps we can go even further afield than the Marin County CivicCenter in the search for an alternative tectonic – a tectonic liberation — andlook to things that fall under the heading of contractor mistakes. The builderof this house added an extra column base for the porch before he realized hismistake, so he left it unfinished [ 4 ]. When he decided to raise the roof a bit, he left the facing of the gable dangling in the air. It did not really bother him. This project makes no one happy. The teacher of architecture would seethis simply as silliness and note that such a building’s resale value has beendamaged. Pro-tectonic advocates would cringe at the careless of the carpenterand perhaps see it as even a statement verging on the immoral. What wouldthis world be if everyone just left their mistakes out to rot. And yet I wouldsay that the builder of this house has made a modest but powerful politicalstatement, not about some fantasy of a ‘corrected’ modernity, but about thetyranny of the ideology of completion and about the pathology of dutifulconformity to expectations all the way down to the detail. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMark Jarzombek Faber Tignarium: Bibliography Christoph, Johann. Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart. Leipzig: JohannGottlob Immanuel Brietkopf, 1781. Frampton, Kenneth. Labour, Work. and Architecture. London: Phaidon, 2002. Frampton. Studies in Tectonic Culture. Cambridge MA, The MIT Press, 1995. Jarzombek, Mark. Architecture Constructed: Notes on a Discipline. Bloomsbury Press, 2023. Kersey, John. Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum: or, a general English Dictionary. London: J. Wilde, 1708. Semper, Gotfried.” London Writings 1850–1855. Edited by Michael Gnehm, Sonja Hildebrand, DieterWeidmann. Zurich: gta Verlag, 2021. Plutarch, Life of Pericles, Modern Library edition. New York: Random House, 1984. Sennett, Richard. The Craftsman. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2008. Hildebrand, Sonja. “Mathematische Kurven in der Architekturtheorie um 1850: Gottfried Semper, DavidRamsay Hay und die Ästhetik der invisible curves des Parthenon,” Figurationen. Gender – Literatur – Kultur. Böhlau Verlag ( 2020): 57 – 76. Schwarzer, Mitchell. “Tectonics of the Unforeseen,” ANY: Architecture New York 1996, No. 14, TectonicsUnbound: Kernform aand Kunstform Revisited! (1996): 62 - 65. Herrmann, Wolfgang. Gottfried Semper: In Search of Architecture. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1984. Steps Towards NegativeTectonics Nathaniel Coleman Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman1Mary McLeod, “Frampton in Frame”, Architec- ture Today, 16 Nov. 2020. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Reflecting on tectonics is impossible without thinking about its ideation byKenneth Frampton, which, despite the quasi- mysticism of Marco Frascari’s “Tell-the-Tale Detail”, or Peter Rice’s structural expressionism (especially asmanifested in Piano’s best work), is how most architecture students, practi- tioners, and educators come to and deploy ideas of any poetics of construc- tion (I suppose there is also Zumthor). If Frampton’s tectonics conceptionclaims to resist architecture’s dissolution by capitalist production, program- ming mostly speaks the language of that dissolution. Like function (or func- tionalism), modernity typically limits programming to over systematization( even without informatics, algorithms, or parametric design). Likewise, despites Tschumi’s claims, “disprogramming” sits within the systematizingorbit of programming, similarly Koolhaas’ performative indeterminateness. In all instances, cybernetic aspirations infuse programming in architecture, inseparably from its happiest home in computer science. At best, tectonicsand programming suggest a negative dialectical tension, impossible to resolvebut worth pursuing. At worst, tectonics and programming are two sides ofarchitecture’s systematizing habits paralleling the long erasure of its discipli- nary status as a liberal profession. Leaving programming aside, the argument here is: instead of providingarchitecture with a foolproof liberating grammatology, Frampton’s attempt toprecisely define the parameters of tectonic resistance, as prerequisite forarchitecture’s redemption, disables the concept, and the architecture that fol- lows, ensnaring both within ambits of totalizing system, ensuring resultsmore programmatic than de-systematizing (which would constitute substan- tive resistance). Hence, the urgency of conceptualizing a negative tectonics, inflected by the initial thoughts on its contours introduced throughout thefollowing pages, anticipates a conception (negatively) dialectical enough toresist easy capture, systematization, or transformation into the banalities ofdesign school briefs, instrumentalized theoretical discourse, or architects’confusedly self-promoting affirmations of art, autonomy, business, science, social justice, and spectacle. Forward Towards the Negative Helpfully, in her consideration of Frampton and his tectonics, Mary McLeodoffers clues to the genetic defects of Frampton’s tectonics: “Frampton seemsto be searching for a logic (and, in his case, an aesthetic vision) that wouldembrace the paradoxes of two seemingly disparate worldviews [phenomenol- ogy and Marxism] in his search for reservoirs of resistance against theonslaught of ‘commodity culture’ and the ‘imperatives of production.’” 1I guess Marxism in the original quote alludes to the Frankfurt School and Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman2Mary McLeod, “Frampton in Frame.” 3Michel Foucault, “Who are you, ProfessorFoucault?” (1967), in Religion and Culture, ed. Jeremy R. Carrette, trans. Lucille Cairns (NewYork: Routledge, 1999), 93. 4Foucault, “Who are you, Professor Fou- cault?”, 93. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics represents Left/modernism, whereas phenomenology representsRight/ traditionalism. Accepting McLeod’s reading, Frampton’s search “for a logic”, to con- struct “an aesthetic vision” resistant to architecture’s capture by the cultureand building industries depends on his embrace of the “seemingly disparateworldviews” of “phenomenology and Marxism.” 2 Especially as performed byarchitects (practitioners, teachers, students), both represent totalizingvisions. While Marxist tendencies toward absoluteness are familiar enough, architectural phenomenology mostly evades such badging, perhaps because itlargely presumes the continuity of an unfallen golden age despite endlessrupturing catastrophes, which sets it Right of center, in contrast to Marxism’sLeft of center positioning. However, as Foucault concludes, “the phenomeno- logical method certainly wants to account for everything, whether it be to dowith the cogito or with what precedes reflection, with what ‘is already there’when the cogito is activated; in this sense, it is clearly a totalising method.”3Arguably, Frampton’s persisting impulse to construct the logic of an aestheticvision requires him to attempt to “account for everything” in totalizing fash- ion, intermixing Marx and Marxism with phenomenology. However, Frampton’s putative struggle against capitalist maximalization amounts toprogramming solutions ensnared within the constellations of thought andaction he longs to resist and overcome. Conveniently, Foucault provides a route away from tectonics and pro- gram by asserting: “from the moment one cannot describe everything, it isthrough the concealing the cogito, in a way putting aside that first illusion ofthe cogito, that we can see emerging entire systems of relation that otherwisewould not be describable”; including, for example, the associability of phe- nomenology and Marxism as simultaneously conservative and totalizing intheir nostalgic programmatic aspirations. 4 Arguably, rather than liberating architecture, Frampton’s tectonics for- mulation ensnares it within totalizing system – immobilizing the conceptwhile incapacitating the architecture it prefigures. Recuperating the tectonicentails rescuing it from programmatic Marxism and (Heideggerian) phenom- enology alike. Admitting catastrophe and fragmentation rather than denyingeither are first steps towards a negative tectonics, guided by Adorno’s nega- tive dialectics, which continuously thinks thought against itself (in theoryand practice), thereby avoiding the resolving tendencies of Frampton’s tec- tonic ambition. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman5Juhani Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin: Archi- tecture and the Senses (Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons, 2007), 64. 6Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin 64, with mycommentary bolded in brackets. 7Steen Eiler Rasmussen, Experiencing Architec- ture (1957), trans. Eve Wendt (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962). Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Tectonics Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow The overriding effort of many contemporary purveyors of tectonics toachieve synthesis begs to be overcome negatively. Nowhere is the penchantfor eradicating tension, critical historical perspectives, and consciousnessfrom affirmations of the tectonic more pronounced than in the following: The authenticity of architectural experience is grounded in the tectoniclanguage of building and the comprehensibility of the act of construction tothe senses. We behold, touch, listen and measure the world with our entirebodily existence, and the experiential world becomes organised and articulat- ed around the center of the body.”5 Unfortunately, too many architecture students are introduced toPallasmaa’s Eyes of the Skin, source of the preceding quote, without encour- agement to critically interrogate the text. Were I to teach the text (I do not), I would introduce it something like this: The authenticity [what is meant by authenticity? Authentic to whom? How does it compare to the inauthentic?] of architectural experience is [isthis universal, individual, situated, bodily, or primarily visual? Is architec- tural experience primarily aesthetic or is it primarily gained through use?] grounded in the tectonic language of building [What does it mean to saythis? What is the tectonic language of building? If experiencing architec- ture is grounded in the tectonic language of building – whatever that mightbe – can there be no accounting of Le Corbusier’s arguably a-tectonicwork?] and the comprehensibility of the act of construction to the senses[ How does this explain the generally extruded quality of contemporaryconstruction? Does this simply hint at bodily perceptions of gravity?]. Webehold, touch, listen and measure the world with our entire bodily existence, and the experiential world becomes organised and articulated around thecenter of the body [The first part might be true by default, what is the evi- dence for the second?].” 6 Pallasmaa’s too problematic to be useful representation reveals SteenEiler Rasmussen’s formulation of nearly the same as much more persuasivelypragmatic. 7 Despite its association with Pallasmaa, Frampton’s working outof the tectonic is too compelling to ignore: Greek in origin, the term tectonic derives from the term tekton, signify- ing carpenter or builder. This in turn stems from the Sanskrit taksan, refer- ring to the craft of carpentry and to the use of the ax. Remnants of a similarterm can also be found in Vedic, where it again refers to carpentry. In Greekit appears in Homer, where it again alludes to carpentry and to the art of con- struction in general. The poetic connotation of the term first appears in Sap- pho where the tekton, the carpenter, assumes the role of the poet. This Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman8Kenneth Frampton, “Rappel a L'ordre the Casefor the Tectonic”, Architectural Design, vol. 60, no. 3–4 (1990): 19–25, in Theorizing A NewAgenda For Architecture: An Anthology ofArchitectural Theory, 1965–1995, ed. Kate Nes- bitt (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 521. 9Manfredo Tafuri, Theories and History of Archi- tecture (1968, 1976), trans. Giorgio Verrecchia( London: Granada, 1980), 141, 153. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics meaning undergoes further evolution as the term passes from being some- thing specific and physical, such as carpentry, to the more generic notion ofconstruction and later to becoming an aspect of poetry. In Aristophanes weeven find the idea that it is associated with machination and the creation offalse things. This etymological evolution would suggest a gradual passagefrom the ontological to the representational. Finally, the Latin term architec- tus derives from the Greek archi (a person of authority) and tekton (a crafts- man or builder).”8 More succinctly, Frampton’s good architect is in parts a carpenter andbuilder, adept at using appropriate tools, including for construction in gener- al. But emergence of its poetic dimension is what makes the tectonic interest- ing: shifting it from the specific (carpenter), to the general (construction), toarrive at the poetic, which for Frampton charts the movement of the tectonicfrom the ontological (related to the nature of being), to the representational( relating to symbolic interpretation). Together they confirm Frampton’sindebtedness to Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology, particularly “Building, Dwelling, Thinking” (1954). Ultimately, Frampton’s debt to the reprehensible Heidegger’s taintedthought, especially when he attempts to blend it with Adorno’s negativedialectics, produces conceptualizations and programs that are soupier thansalad- like and more gruel- like than either. Frampton is an incisive critic buta less powerful theorist: he continuously struggles to frame generative ideas, no matter how seductive. The irreconcilable differences between Heideggerand Adorno suggest forgetting the former to come closer to the latter couldhave better equipped Frampton’s critical regionalism and tectonic representa- tions to resist systematization as aesthetic models of performative resistance, and thereby dissolution into easily digestible jargons of authenticity, ready fordeployment in and by the culture industry. Perhaps Frampton – even more sothan Zevi or Giedion – confirms Tafuri’s prohibition against operative histo- ry and criticism by historians, defined as follows: What is normally meant by operative [history and] criticism is ananalysis of architecture (or of the arts in general) that, instead of an abstractsurvey, has as its objective the planning of a precise poetical tendency, antici- pated in its structures and derived from historical analyses programmaticallydistorted and finalised. […]. Operative criticism is, then, an ideological criti- cism (we always use the term ideological in its Marxian sense): it substitutesready- made judgments of value (prepared for immediate use) for analyticalrigour.” 9 By anticipating long before the fact, the failure of Frampton’s best- known forays into operative criticism (portrayed as historiography), Tafuriinforms my analysis: Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman10Tafuri, Theories and History, 156. 11Tafuri, Theories and History, 159; Frampton, "Rappel a L'ordre", p. 520. 12Nathaniel Coleman, Recoding ArchitecturePedagogy: Insurgency and Invention (London: Routledge, 2025), 23–45; Nathaniel Coleman, “Rehabilitating Operative Criticism”, in TheContested Territory of Architectural Theory, ed. Elie G. Haddad (London: Routledge, 2024), 67–86; Tafuri, Theories and Histories, 155. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics But there is not much evidence that these deformations of history have hadmuch impact, especially on the younger generations. In the last resort, opera- tive historicism fails completely, precisely in the field of concrete action: if wetake for granted the inability of architects and of the public in general to statethe complexity and specificity of historical events, then the actualisation ofhistory consciously ratifies the proliferation of myth. And myth is alwaysagainst history.” 10 Frampton’s planning of precise poetical tendencies is cognate withTafuri’s characterization of operative criticism as preoccupied with the cur- rent “architectural situation”; for Frampton “the primacy given to the sceno- graphic in the evolution of the bourgeois world” manifests “the predominanttendency today […] to reduce all architectural expression to the status ofcommodity culture.” 11 For Tafuri, to construct accounts of how dominantforces play out in cultural production, history must reject operativity byremaining independent of current activity. Perhaps Frampton’s inclinationtowards manifesto- like pronouncements – operative criticism – reveals anenduring attachment to himself as a practicing architect. Readers familiarwith my most recent publications will be aware that much like Tafuri, I extolthe value of operative criticism for artistic and architectural invention, solong as it is not portrayed as “scientific history”. 12 Steps Towards Negative Tectonics While I remain preoccupied with the oft neglected social dimension of archi- tecture (mirroring general suppression of its political dimensions), these aresymptoms rather than causes. Admittedly, identifying the sources ofarchitecture's emptying – which preoccupies Frampton – presents nearlyimpossible problems, not least because the condition is profoundly overde- termined. Consequently, the shift from disciplinary knowledge to technicity, summed up as anti-theoretical commercial (or neo-avant-garde) practice, could begin to seem something like causes. But even these are symptomaticof something preceding them. Fixating on causes –diagnosis – preservessymptoms and their aetiology by shielding project (prognosis) from Utopia(the science of alternatives). Ultimately, no matter how much systemic trans- formation is claimed for performative Newness (its appearances), the claimsthemselves, and the results, sustain systemic homeostasis; even amplifyingthe dominant’s decisive hold on reality, including the production of space. The most obvious example of this, which each passing decade crystalizes, isthe nearly complete dissociation of aesthetic and social claims from results inthe case of stylistic postmodernism. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman13Caroline A. Jones, “Post-modernism,” in GroveArt Online. 2003. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Ostensibly, postmodernism revalued intuition, locality, and ordinariness( irrationality) in reaction to modernism’s reputed scientific rationality. In arthistorical terms, as in the public imagination, this denoted “buildings thatcourted a selective eclecticism, often utilizing elements of Classical or Neo- classical origin.” Most charitably, 1970s and 1980s postmodernism is “per- ceived as growing out of the resistance to a canonical modernism in the1960s, in turn related to the growing pluralism in art and architecture thatcame to be associated with Post-modernism from the early 1980s.”13 Despiteapparent variety, architectural postmodernism’s poles, staked out by so-calledgreys and whites, across a spectrum encompassing Venturi’s populism, Eisenman’s abstractions, Graves’ whimsy, Rossi’s initial seriousness, orJohnson’s cynicism (amongst many others), little changed. Instead, sociocul- turally, the myriad repackaging exercises were consolidating, unsurprisingly, since in most instances, apparent transformation was superficial – mere aes- thetics, even when masked as either political or autonomous. From withinthis context, Frampton's imagined critical regionalism and then tectonicsrepresented third way alternatives to populism (stylistic postmodernism) andabstraction (deconstructivism / the neo-avant-garde), able to resist the uni- versalising tendencies of globalised production. Although Fredric Jameson’s influential readings of architectural post- modernisms (at least for architecture academics; a select grouping of self-ref- erencing architects; some PhD candidates in architecture, history, theory, orcriticism; and fewer students) could seem a kind of boosterism of neo-avant- gardist pretences, his deepest insights (intriguingly close to Tom Wolfe’s con- clusions in From Bauhaus to Our House, 1981) are revealed in the title ofarguably his best known book: Postmodernism: Or the Cultural Logic of LateCapitalism (1991). As simultaneously captured by the building and cultureindustries, architecture – no matter the claims – decorates capital above allelse. With very few exceptions, architecture’s sociopolitical project is feeble, its claims to autonomy unconvincing, and its results commercial. It is withinthis frame that Frampton’s tectonics, appropriated thereafter by others, begsto be interrogated; as an expression of postmodernism; more a manifestationof the cultural logic of (late) capitalism than a convincing form of resistanceto architecture’s dissolution (whether aesthetic or political). Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman14Tafuri, Manfredo. Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Production (1973), trans. Barbara Luigi. La Penta (Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1976), ix-x. 15Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia, ix, 48, 76,135, 182. 16Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia, p. x. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Opening Salvo In his 1973 book, Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Develop- ment, Tafuri militated for nothing less than reimagining architecture, farbeyond Frampton’s remediations: when the role of a discipline ceases to exist, to try to stop the course ofthings is only regressive Utopia, and of the worst kind. […]. What is of inter- est here is the precise identification of those tasks which capitalist develop- ment has taken away from architecture. That is to say, what it has taken awayin general from ideological prefiguration.” 14 What if divisions of labour are the primary cause of architecture’s per- petual crises, just as its more critical observers have identified. Bereft of itsprevious tasks, emptied of its political (ideological) dimensions, and socialproject (Utopia), and dissociated from art, architecture’s projects struggleagainst consumption and dissolution. In almost every instance, architecturalconception and production are circumscribed by habituation to the logic ofcapitalism; limited to “form without Utopia”, the “ideology of the plan”("as anoperative mechanism"), and the performative (or futile) resistance of out- moded “hopes in design”, which transforms most work into contributions tothe “plan of capital”. 15 Whether plans, or constructions extruding them into three-dimensions, the “ideology of the plan” precludes social transformation – the basis fora resistant architecture, even prefiguratively (the architecture and transfor- mation it imagines or that precedes it). In recapitulating Tafuri’s lamentationson architecture’s demise, I have introduced at least some provisionality – tempering his absolutist tone with fugitive agency’s feeble possibility: almostor most, rather than all. Even so, this is no giddy optimism. All it suggests isskirmishes with capitalism, mainly doomed to failure, but extolled in mybook Recoding Architecture Pedagogy. Amongst all the schematising divisions of labour architecture has beensubject to, engineering’s split-off from it around 1750 remains decisive. Intothe void, image-making, spectacle, performative ethics, and technicity threat- en to overwhelm almost all other concerns – the very things Framptonsought to counter. As a commercial enterprise, dominated by the buildingindustry, myths of autonomy, dreams of escaping use, disregard for tectonics( gravity), and the bodily experience of buildings (use as primary) constitutefalse promises that sharpen the divisions of labour Tafuri believed deprivedarchitecture of “a corresponding institutionally defined role”, which “illusoryhopes” in design offered no hope in redressing. 16 Ultimately, even the pivotalsplit between architecture and engineering is less cause than symptom; it simplyadvances intensification of the divisions of labour capitalism depends on. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman17Dominique Bonnamour- Lloyd and Harris Dim- itropoulos, “Tectonics as a Political Act: Arričre-Garde or Avante-Garde”, in Proceed- ings of the ACSA European Conference, Berlin, 1997, eds. Beth Young and Thomas C. Gelsan- liter (Washington, DC: ACSA, 1997), 244–249. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Nonetheless, the critical juncture marked out by engineering’s separationfrom architecture demands attention, not as fixable by education, any morethan by picturing suturing the cut with magical remediation, even if persua- sively represented as either an aesthetic or a form of resistance, which over- burdens the tectonic. Inevitably, liberal fantasies of progressive education areineffectual in shifting matters of consciousness or influencing systemic trans- formation, highlighting a conundrum of the tectonic: no matter how it findsits way into architecture culture, or at whichever level – as structural expres- sion, exhibitionism, as sober and disciplined, or as a mediated poetics of con- struction – prevailing modes of production, of space and of buildings, defeats it. And yet, the pull of Frampton’s tectonics represents an apparent holdingaction against architecture’s wayward descent into an abyss of meaningless- ness. But it is at best a placebo – devoid of curative capacities that nonethe- less on occasion produce efficacious outcomes (Miralles more thanZumthor). No matter its apparent rude health, or however much the tectonicpromises cure, or sporadically produces worthwhile results, identifying newtasks for architecture within the present reality – free of mythifying delu- sions, or masquerading as scientific history – is pressing. Architecture’s Death & Rebirth? With my thinking influenced by Lefebvre, Ruskin, and other (mostly Jewish) romantic anti-capitalists, often anarchist in name or spirit, my estimation isreconstructing architecture entails imagining demythologised tasks for it (anargument developed in Recoding Architecture Pedagogy). Preoccupied withrooms in one direction, cities and land in the other, mediated by buildings; addressing architecture’s multitudinous problems to define its tasks – beyondimage or technicity – depends on intensifying tensions between conflictingdesires, including between artistic autonomy and the burdens of use, toestablish cross-axes out of which promising work could emerge (but only ifFrampton’s confused aesthetic/activist inclinations are resisted). Complexifying Frampton’s tectonic brackets its tendencies toward (fic- tionally resistant) polarities – ostensible mediation between extremes (theaesthetic and the political), and its drive towards synthesis (as a poetics ofconstruction); necessary to shield it from being “essentially non-transgres- sive”, by “in fact” affirming “the framework” it ostensibly criticizes. 17 Indeed, this makes the tectonic incapable of transgressiveness – despite Framptonascribing noncompliant aspirations to it: by affirming what it criticises, it issubsumed within the construction industry. But identifying unacknowledgedtensions in the tectonic (it cannot be both autonomous – art, and political – Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman18Adorno, Aesthetic Theory (1970), ed. and trans. Robert Hullot- Kentor (London: Continuum, 1997), 44. 19Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, 44. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics action simultaneously), or its theoretical shortcomings (the attempt to syn- thesise art and politics deprives it of a critical position by making it neitherpolitical nor art), can chart a path towards recuperating its pragmatic valueas semiautonomous, thereby unleashing it to agonistically skirmish with cap- italist production, disabused of its current mythologising distortions. Without replacing one systematization with another, Adorno’s reflec- tions on art and architecture suggest how the tectonic could become morerobust if freed of impulses to synthesise, or to conceptualise dialectics asopposites, to instead intensify its internal tensions by embracing perpetualcollision. And, inevitably, Heidegger must go. According to Adorno, Art is not to be reduced to the unquestionable polarity of the mimeticand the constructive, as if this were an invariant formula […]. But what wasfruitful in modern art was what gravitated toward one of the extremes, notwhat sought to mediate between them; those works that strove after both, insearch of synthesis, were rewarded with a dubious consensus.” 18 Despite its apparent clarity, there is a softness to Frampton’s tectonicconception, which sets it drifting toward mediation, if not synthesis, includ- ing between Adorno and Heidegger (and the Frankfurt School and phenome- nology more generally). While synthesis might seem the aim of dialecticalthinking, Adorno is clear, gravitating toward one of the extremes – ontologi- cal or representation in Frampton’s tectonics – protects efforts from “dubiousconsensus”. The tectonic would benefit from gravitating towards the extremeof representation, or better yet, use, in tension with production. As framed byAdorno, it is a fruitful dialectic of “construction” in tension with “expres- sion”: Construction is not the corrective of expression, nor does it serve as itsguarantor by fulfilling the need for objectivation; rather, construction mustconform to the mimetic impulses without planning, as it were […]. Similarly, construction cannot, as a form empty of human content, wait to be filledwith expression. Rather, construction gains expression through coldness.” 19 One pole of the dialectic neither corrects nor guarantees the other, rather, intensifying tensions between them leans toward work that in main- taining some degree of autonomy persists as critical, which makes it signifi- cant. The human warmth of expression in intensifying tension with the cold- ness of construction establishes a dynamic condition wherein mimesis inflectsconstruction, gaining in expressiveness through intensification of its nonhu- man coldness. Without anticipating anything beyond the hidden causes ofsignificant work, the contours of Adorno’s reflections are nearly untraceablein Frampton’s affirmational tectonics. Clarifying the point further – right upto identifying great architecture with its “superfunctional language”, Adorno Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman20Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, 45. 21Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, 45. 22Theodor W. Adorno, “Functionalism Today” (1965, 1966), trans. Jane O Newman and JohnH. Smith, Oppositions 17 (Summer 1979): 38. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics provides a much stronger conception of an intensified tectonic – a nega- tive tectonic: Functionalism today, prototypically in architecture, would need topush construction so far that it would win expression through the rejectionof traditional and semitraditional forms. Great architecture gains its supra- functional language when it works directly from its purposes, effectivelyannouncing them mimetically as the work's content.” 20 A major shortcoming of Frampton’s tectonic is sacrifice of a negativedialectic in favour of practice- ready schemas for ostensibly good work. Notonly does this deprive his conception of traction, but its failings also sets theground for an overabundance of precisely the sort of work he hoped adher- ence to his concepts could resist: the scenographic preponderance of archi- tectural production today that reduces architecture to commodity, mirroringthe bourgeois world. What if instead, the suprafunctional language of great architecture wasunderstood to be gained only “when it works directly from its purposes[ uses], effectively announcing them mimetically as the work's content”, achieved by pushing “construction so far that it [wins] expression throughthe rejection of traditional and semitraditional forms”, including renouncingbuildings as decorative spectacles adorning increasingly incomprehensiblecities. 21 “Architecture would thus attain a higher standard the more intenselyit reciprocally mediated the two extremes — formal construction and func- tion.”22 But not the tectonic, so long as Frampton’s diffusive appropriation ofintellectual sources prevails, limiting its capacities for pushing beyond super- ficial amelioration. The Best of All Possible Worlds For Frampton, the world is overwhelmingly just, reconcilable to the will ofthe good, but it is precisely this affirmation that ultimately binds the tectonicto what already is – building production transparently manifesting the domi- nant that dominates, propagating exactly the sort of work Frampton seeks toresist. In this way, Frampton’s tectonics is ultimately a phenomenology ofspirit – identified with direct access to a golden age of unfallenness suppos- edly accessible simply by turning toward it. It presumes the possibility ofabsolute knowledge, informed by comprehensive understanding, ostensiblyensuring overcoming alienation, or rendering it a nonissue. Apart from beingtainted by Heidegger’s unrepentant affinity for National Socialism, with itsindivisible antisemitism, aligned with the ideology and results of the Holo- caust, Frampton’s tectonic disregards the intransigent conditions of alienationthat Catastrophe renders a permanent fixture of existing in the world, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman23Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia, ix. 24Marianela D’Aprile and Douglas Spencer. “Notes on Tafuri, Militancy, and Unionization”, The Avery Review 56 (April 2022). 25Theodor W. Adorno, “Cultural Criticism andSociety” (1949), in Prisms, trans. Samuel andShierry Weber (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967), 34. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics including for cultural production and recovery’s limited prospects. Crucially, this reveals nothing more than Frampton’s apparent naiveté in one directionand underdeveloped critical historical grounding, or dialectical thoughtprocesses, in the other. The alternative to insurgent and inventive practices is submission to theseemingly inexorable eradication of architecture’s remnant roles (social, cul- tural, political/ideological), transforming it into little more than a protectedtitle. Following successive dissolution of its capacities, including prohibitionagainst engaging in what Tafuri called “ideological prefiguration”, architecture’s destiny (intensifying since its digitisation from the late 1980sonwards) – the apotheosis of its disciplinary cessation – appears to be on thenear horizon, as more of its tasks are inevitably displaced to Ai.23 More than fifty years ago, Tafuri argued that architects transformed intotechnicians in building industries demanded reconceptualising their tasks, starting with architecture education. His motivations were dialectical, notsubservient (or instrumentalizing) – even in his darkest estimations, sparksof alternatives are findable, though not by him (stymied as he was by Marxi- an orthodoxies). His welcoming the instauration of new tasks for architectureis emancipatory, not conformist (despite being obscured by the interminablewait for revolution). Today, architects’ next transition seems their transfor- mation from building industry technicians (with few exceptions), to fullyfledged imagineers — devolving the last remnants of architecture’s disciplineto the new tasks of effective but compliant prompt engineers. And yet, embracing their proletarianization could translate into architects’ self-organi- sation (unionisation), which promises at least the return of a modicum ofautonomy to their practices. As Spencer and D’Aprile observed, “this move- ment […] does not spell the death of architecture but rather, in the long run, a new life for it”.24 Beginning with the complexities of Adorno’s proposition that writing “poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”, the comforts of phenomenology andprogram in their tectonic and technocratic guises beg for abandoning, tobegin working in the fallen world as it is, guided by desires for alternativerelationships, anticipatorily illuminating elusive revolution. 25 A negative tec- tonic foregoes illusions of continuity without renouncing use (bodies or grav- ity), while disavowing autonomy myths, even as some artistic distance ismaintained. The persisting political context of architecture’s productionimplicates it in making and maintaining brutal inequalities, includingdespoiling the planet, confirming the persisting significance of Adorno’sthinking for working in and through catastrophe, necessitating foregoingrepetition in favor of reconstruction, while surrendering all prospects of res- olution, if not desires for it. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman26Fredric Jameson, The Seeds of Time (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1994), 189. 27For an earlyish overview of the tectonic, see, Robert Maulden, “Tectonics in Architecture: From the Physical to the Meta-Physical”, (M. Arch Thesis, Cambridge, MA: MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, 1986). Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Slicing through cross axes is the operative procedure for recovering tectonicsfrom the totalizing conceptions that neutralize its potential power. Frampton’s error was to fall into the trap of sloganeering, coining easilydigestible catchphrases that make his brand of radicalism palatable. Althoughthis popularized his most powerful ideas, it also defanged them, most dra- matically his “critical regionalism” conceptualization, which quickly devolvedinto a jargon of authenticity perfectly aligned with the culture industry, a fail- ing Jameson adeptly observed when writing about Frampton’s “criticalregionalism”, one cause perhaps of Frampton later backing away from theconcept. His “tectonics” appears to have fared much better. But Jameson’sreservations about “critical regionalism” are largely applicable to “tectonics” as well. For example, Jameson notes that “critical regionalism” inevitablyseeks, “by describing the constitutive features of authentic works of art asthey already exist, to suggest invariants and norms for the production offuture works.”26 Ideations of regions are ultimately as circumscribed as any poetics ofconstruction subject to (subsumed within) the building industries deter- mined by technicity; shaped by capitalist production; beholden to perfor- mance standards; and restricted by material costs. In short, just as the idea ofa region, the regional, and the local are at best fragile, but increasinglyimplausible (notwithstanding stubborn traces), Frampton’s tectonic presumesa barely existent solid ground to support the normative presumptions ani- mating both “critical regionalism” and the “tectonic”. Perhaps Frampton’s ageor his professional status when he wrote both is significant. He was 52 or53 in 1983 when “Critical Regionalism” was published (the age when manyarchitects finally come into their own), and 64 or 65 in 1995 when Studies inTectonic Cultures was published, the capstone of his work on the topic and ofhis career. His reflections on a poetics of construction extend back through “Rappel a L'ordre the Case for the Tectonic”, 1990, and Modern Architecture: A Critical History, first published in 1980, which contains some of Frampton’sstrongest writing, especially the sections where he powerfully intertwinescultural expression and technological production, from the 17th-century tothe near present in the 5th edition (2020).27 Inevitably, Frampton’s tectonic conception is more persuasive than criti- cal regionalism, not least because the latter is so clearly a mythologization ofa wish in the form of a project, while the former is a powerful fairytale – a utopian longing – potentially compelling enough to begin reshaping reality. Perhaps that has less to do with its hopeful narrative than with moribundarchitecture culture, generally weak teaching in architecture schools, and thecorrosive effects of professional cultures, the representative bodies of each, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman28Jameson, Seeds, p. 40. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics and the downward direction legislated by accreditation – the milieu Framp- ton by default is constrained to represent, rather than effectively resist. Though he arrived from practice, Frampton is first and foremosta career academic. Hierarchically organized bureaucratically rational organi- zations cannot countenance agitation or insurgency. As such, utopian aspira- tion is incompatible with career progression within institutions. In the event, Frampton is as much consumed by the culture industry as his Institute forArchitecture and Urban Studies (IAUS) office-mate Eisenman. But since thetectonic and critical regionalism constituted some form of putative resistancefor Frampton, or his contribution to activism, the moment his programs tookthe form of an aesthetic they could no longer be political in an operativesense, nor could they be art, which is why both tended toward ideology in itsbad sense: mythologizing resistance, thereby limiting it to performative dis- plays. Naming critical regionalism and the tectonic were the first missteps onthe road toward lost marginality, to become subjects of architecture schoolmodules, learned conferences, and journals, edited collections, or singleauthored books: just more platitudes for architects to pay lip service to. Despite being compelling, or precisely because of this, the tectonic is neithera form of resistance nor autonomous (difficult) art. It is instead just onestream of professional culture (amongst others) mostly beyond reflection, with its thought structures immune to modes of thinking against itself, dialectically (and negatively). As Jameson observes, If, as Adorno came to think, current society reproduces itself by way ofpractices and habits, and technocracy and consumerism not only no longerrequire ideational grounding but aim precisely to eliminate the last vestigesof distance implicit in ideas and concepts as such […] then ideological cri- tique loses its mission, and the tracking down and correction of intellectualerror is a less urgent ideological and political activity than the elimination ofphilosophical activity altogether.” 28 Paradoxically, what makes Frampton so much more agreeable thanmany architecture writers (who fantasize autonomy by way of third levelabstraction, while dutifully attending to their careers), also entraps his con- cepts in a kind of not-political, not-autonomous, not aesthetic netherworld, whereby they too easily become toothless soundbites unable to resist con- sumption, lacking the robustness to take the first steps towards changing theworld. But since revolution remains as far off as ever, its promised redemp- tion constitutes yet another distortion amongst others. At best, all that is pos- sible, and hardly that, are skirmishes with capitalism that must ultimately beself-destroying, not as nihilistic acts of self-abnegation but as autonomousmaneuvers capable of fending off – even momentarily – the solvent ofconsumption. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman29Adorno, ‘Functionalism Today’. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics The thing Frampton never quite deals with but learned anarchists cannotavoid, is the relative obdurateness of the very structures that all but nullifyFrampton’s split concepts: aesthetic dictates masquerading as resistance, orresistance masquerading as aesthetic dictates. While Frampton knows theshape of architecture, its tectonic or critical regional potential does not residein the hands of architects, since the production of space is ultimately out oftheir control; he does not subject his thinking to the necessary discomforts ofthinking against itself, which a negative tectonic must do to do to resist, evenquixotically, its immediate devourment. And just as Utopia can be desiredbut not depicted, or ‘Pataphysics is nameable but undefinable, a negative tec- tonics is a matter of consciousness, not a politics, nor an aesthetics — it hasno final form. But as this is an architecture paper, proffering some modelseems obligatory, even if only by way of analogy, which brings me to vanEyck and back to Adorno (though other architects and philosophersare available). Inevitably, alongside Adorno’s negative dialectics, taking steps towardsa negative tectonics follows a parallel track vigorously laid out by Aldo vanEyck in his extraordinary 1962 essay “Steps Toward a Configurative Disci- pline”, which persists as a surer path to reform for architecture than the tec- tonic offers, although barely trod by educators, students, or architects. Echo- ing the substance of van Eyck’s proposition, Adorno argues, A work must cut through the contradictions and overcome them, notby covering them up, but by pursuing them. Mere formal beauty, whateverthat might be, is empty and meaningless; the beauty of its content is lost inthe preartistic sensual pleasure of the observer. Beauty is either the resultantof force vectors or it is nothing at all. A modified aesthetics would outline itsown object with increasing clarity as it would begin to feel more intensely theneed to investigate it. Unlike traditional aesthetics, it would not necessarilyview the concept of art as its given correlate. Aesthetic thought today mustsurpass art by thinking art. It would thereby surpass the current oppositionof purposeful and purpose- free, under which the producer must suffer asmuch as the observer.” 29 Adorno’s thought breathes in and out in ways Frampton barelyapproaches in his thinking. Aldo van Eyck envisioned an architecture like- wise, organised around the interstitial in-between referring to psychologicalambivalence as to its spatialisation as thresholds, but never primarilyabstractly as might be imagined — material prevails as the first point of con- tact between buildings and their users, manifested by strongly defined struc- tural systems, and forms offered up for continuous appropriations, fully cog- nisant of the building industry. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Bibliography Adorno, Theodor W. “Cultural Criticism and Society” (1949). In Prisms, translated by Samuel and ShierryWeber, 19-34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967. https://archive.org/details/prisms0000ador Adorno, Theodor W. “Functionalism Today” (1965, 1966), trans. Jane O Newman and John H. Smith. Oppositions 17 (Summer 1979): 31-41. https://archive.org/details/usmodernist-OPP-1979-17/page/n5/mode/2up Adorno, Theodor W. Aesthetic Theory (1970), edited and translated by Robert Hullot-Kentor, London: Continuum, 1997. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv125jvbt Bonnamour-Lloyd, Dominique and Dimitropoulos, Harris. “Tectonics as a Political Act: Arričre-Garde orAvante-Garde.” In Proceedings of the ACSA European Conference, Berlin, edited by Beth Young andThomas C. Gelsanliter, 244-249. Washington, DC: ACSA, 1997. https://www.acsa-arch.org/chapter/tectonics-as-a-political-act-arriere-garde-or-avant-garde/ Coleman, Nathaniel. Recoding Architecture Pedagogy: Insurgency and Invention. London & New York, Routledge, 2005. Coleman, Nathaniel, “Rehabilitating Operative Criticism.” In The Contested Territory of ArchitecturalTheory, edited by Elie G. Haddad, 67-86. London: Routledge, 2024. D’Aprile, Marianela and Spencer, Douglas. “Notes on Tafuri, Militancy, and Unionization,” The AveryReview 56 (April 2022): http://averyreview.com/issues/56/notes-on-tafuri Foucault, Michel. “Who are you, Professor Foucault?” (1967). In Religion and Culture, edited by JeremyR. Carrette, translated by Lucille Cairns, 87-105, New York: Routledge, 1999. https://archive.org/details/ michel-foucault-religion-and-culture-1999-routledge %20 Frampton, Kenneth. “Rappel a L'ordre the Case for the Tectonic,” Architectural Design, vol. 60, no. 3-4(1990): 19-25. Reprinted in Theorizing A New Agenda For Architecture: An Anthology of ArchitecturalTheory, 1965-1995, edited by Kate Nesbitt, 517-527, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996). Jameson, Fredric. The Seeds of Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. https://www.are.na/block/2767767 Jones, Caroline A. “Post-modernism.” In Grove Art Online. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.T069002 McLeod, Mary. “Frampton in Frame.” Architecture Today. 16 Nov. 2020. https://architecturetoday.co.uk/frampton-in-frame/ Maulden, Robert. “Tectonics in Architecture: From the Physical to the Meta-Physical.” M. Arch Thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture, 1986. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/78804 Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394200702 Rasmussen, Steen Eiler. Experiencing Architecture (1957), Second Edition. Translated by Eve Wendt, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962. https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Rasmussen_Steen_Eiler_Experiencing_Architecture_1962.pdf Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNathaniel Coleman Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Tafuri, Manfredo. Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Production (1973). Translated byBarbara Luigi. La Penta. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1976. https://archive.org/details/architectureutop0000tafu Tafuri, Manfredo. Theories and History of Architecture (1968, 1976). Translated by Giorgio Verrecchia. London: Granada, 1980. van Eyck, Aldo. “Steps Towards a Configurative Discipline.” Forum, vol. 16, no. 2 (August 1962): pp. 85- 106. https://hts3.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/van-eyck_steps-towards-a-configurative-discipline.pdf Alfred De Credico and the Tactility of Meaning The paintings and drawings of Alfred De Credico are presented hereas a palate cleanser for the intellect and an opportunity to considerthe topic at hand from another perspective. Anthropologist André Leroi-Gourhan in his important book “Ges- ture and Speech” argued the hand and mouth guided the develop- ment of the human brain (Broca's area in particular) which intimatelyties physical making to speech and writing. De Credico’s work exem- plifies Leroi-Gourgan’s premise, fluctuating between legibility and ani- mal action, figuration and material scribing. The primal marks of De Credico’s paintings belie an underlyingsophistication: a self-reflective dialogue between an inner voice andactive hand, speech begetting gesture as gesture begets speech. DeCredico's visceral dialogic marking, scratching, digging, pouring isa kind of calligraphic inscribing activity of the soul. A precursor to thetectonics of language, paralleling this journal's probing of tectonicsand language, De Credico's work offers a glimpse of the connectivepre- symbolism that binds making, material and language. Artist’s Statement: The images in my work are intended to function as visual hypertext. Umberto Eco bestdescribes this concept as "a multidimensional network in which every point or node can bepotentially connected with any other node." I use historic references, recognizable images, and real objects in my work as well as non-objective calligraphic marks and forms, whichbecome meaningful when, placed in the context of "connection." These elements occupya non-linear, non-representational, non-western spatial organization and are connectedconceptually rather than literally or sequentially. In addition, I explore classical and mythicalthemes, seen through the filter of contemporary experience. Drawing is a solitary activity during which the artist engages in the act of creating, notreplicating, an experience. IT has the capacity for relevance beyond "aesthetic" – cannotdistinguish between the painter or the architect, the sculptor or the designer of objects. ITallows for existence in a place of possibility, between the present and the future, where "knowing" and "discovery" collide and merge. When I am making a drawing I am continually aware of the seductive nature of thematerials I use – I am careful not to succumb to their seduction while allowing them to worktheir magic. If materials are allowed to take control of a drawing, or if the reason for a draw- ing is only to explore material means, then "the serious artistic point" of the activityis undermined. Serious DRAWING is, by necessity, about the abandonment of will and ego as much asit is about embracing them. IT is about contending with the precarious balance that mustexist between these aspects of the persona and the inventiveness of the conscious mind. Alfred De Credico—1944 – 2009—was professor of Foundation Drawing at the Rhode IslandSchool of Design for over thirty-years. Teaching a Stone to Talk Untitled Krahen Uber einem Weizenfeld Crows Over a Wheat Field Zussmmengesetzt an den Huften Joined at the Hip Musik fur eine Messe Music for a Mass The Contemplations of Padre Pio Broken Toes The Second Cataract The Thinning Space ofArchitectureAI Image Generation and theReversal of Design Logic Anne-Catrin Schultz Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz 1 1ChatGPT-generated Image. Prompt: Create acontemporary 20-story building in the seaportdistrict of Boston next to the ICA museum withrestaurants on the ground floor and apartments onupper floors. (https://chatgpt.com/share/68471ad5-0a7c-8004-93e8-2c573088a57a) 1Numerous researchers are working on thistopic, for example: I. As, S. Pal, and P. Basu, "Artificial Intelligence in Architecture: Gener- ating Conceptual Design via Deep Learning," International Journal of Architectural Comput- ing 16, no. 4 (2018): 306–327. The Thinning Space of Architecture Introduction: The Design Process and Changing Representations The urgency to address issues related to climate change and other globalchallenges of the 21st century is placing increasing pressure on architecturalproduction to reconsider conventional approaches to both process and prod- uct. The need to conserve the planet’s resources and to work towards circularconstruction is accompanied by the availability of generative digital toolssuch as AI diffusion models that synthesize images from text-based promptsby composing pixels algorithmically. This essay traces the evolution of therole of drawings in design throughout history and examines the shifting con- ception of tectonics, linking both themes at the end to the shifts introducedby digital technologies such as AI image generation. [ 1 ] While AI tools are emerging for all areas of life and production, AI-gen- erated images might have a specific impact on architecture by moving final- ized-looking images to the early schematic design phase, thus changing theformat of articulating ideas and defining concepts. First ideas of buildingswere traditionally developed through sketches, models, and conceptual dia- grams. Architecture representation during the design process evolved fromconceptual and abstract to more specific. Perspectives and renderings weretypically produced towards the end of the process to share a “real view” of theproject with clients and stakeholders. AI-generated images are generated by deep learning models, typicallytrained on large-scale datasets comprising millions of images and their asso- ciated textual descriptions. When prompted to visualize an image of a specu- lative architectural concept, the model draws upon patterns learned duringits training to synthesize new images. These generative models infer correla- tions between visual features and linguistic prompts, enabling them to pro- duce outputs that reflect statistical associations between text and image. Inresponse to a prompt related to architecture, the model may generate compo- sitions that are visually compelling, surprising, and even inspiring. However, the results reflect a collage- like amalgamation of stylistic tropes and formalelements, echoing biases embedded in the training data. The statistical asso- ciations mentioned above are far from an architect examining precedents andexploring an iterative design process. The output is void of tectonic logic, material and structural performance, or construction methodology. Thisraises unresolved questions around ethics, intellectual property, and datagovernance. It might be necessary to adjust the training of designers and ofAI models to develop competent new workflows for design ideation.1 Thisessay traces the historical evolution of architectural drawing as a crucial partof the design process. It also examines the changing understanding of Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz2Spiro Kostof, “The Practice of Architecture inthe Ancient World: Egypt and Greece,” in TheArchitect: Chapters in the History of the Pro- fession, ed. Spiro Kostof (Berkeley: Universityof California Press, 2000), 5. 3Spiro Kostof, “The Practice of Architecture inthe Ancient World,” 7. The Thinning Space of Architecture tectonics, linking both themes to the shifts introduced by digital technologiessuch as AI-driven image generation. The conception of an architectural design ultimately leading to a build- ing is a complex endeavor. Design is impacted by cultural forces, economicand functional requirements, regional conditions, and technological capabili- ties, all brought together by the architects’ and engineers’ approach. ‘Design’as an activity represents a problem- solving act that is not limited to architec- ture but takes place in all professions. There is a specific goal, an appropriatesolution, but the problem posed is multifaceted and must be defined andrefined throughout the process. Building design frequently evolves from theabstract to the concrete, with precedents and previous examples leading theway. Depending on culture and timeframe, the drivers for architectural pro- duction (program, technology, expression, etc.) vary. In ancient Greece, forexample, the form and configuration of the iconic Greek temples were givenby a higher order. Spyro Kostof states: “The form of the temple must be God- given, and the recipient must be the highest representative on earth of divineauthority. This often meant the king.”2 Written instructions for buildingswere archived on rolls of papyrus or leather to be consulted by the statearchitect as necessary. Rulers, squares, and triangles were used to developand document the design. Drawings were drawn with reed pens on papyrusor leather.3 Exploring further how design narratives and tectonic frameworkswere generated and communicated throughout the architectural designprocess might illuminate how the increased resolution of formal expression isimpacted by AI-image generation. Tectonics in this context is defined as theduality of technology, craftsmanship, and resulting form: the art and scienceof construction as an indissoluble unit. Inspired by the architecture of ancient Greece, the Romans also valuedproper proportions, believing that proportional relationships ensured bothstructural stability and formal harmony. Roman architects were less interest- ed in the tectonic systems of their precedents –column orders were flattenedas superficies and predominantly applied to facades, exemplified by theColosseum in Rome. Inspiration was largely drawn from built examples of Greek architectureand their reinterpretations, aligning politically and culturally with the cultur- al power communicated by them. The Roman architect, engineer, and theo- rist Vitruvius gives a sense of the range of drawings to be drawn during thedesign process: plans, elevations, and perspectives (which he refers to asscaenographia). Drawing tools—a compass and ruler—were used to set theoutlines of the building. Elevations represented the façades and the building’soverall appearance. Beyond recording the geometric information, Vitruviusalso refers to the term sciographia as “a perception of the building’s totality in Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz 2 3 2ChatGPT-generated Image. Prompt: Generate aRoman temple according to the guidelines writtenin Vitruvius's Ten Books on Architecture, usingGreek architecture as precedent, applying properproportions but adapting it to Roman culture andprograms.(https://chatgpt.com/c/688f8080-b7d8- 8004-b0c7-9badad7a3b42) 3Michelangelo, Capitol Square, Rome, Italy: viewfrom Senator’s palace, 2015. Photo by Kameister, CC by 4.0. 4Cited after Alberto Perez-Gomez, “Architec- ture as Drawing,” in JAE 2 Vol 36 (1982), 3. 5Spiro Kostof, “The architect in the MiddleAges, East and West,” in Cuff, Dana. 1977. TheArchitect: Chapters in the History of the Pro- fession. Edited by Spiro Kostof. First Califor- nia paperback printing 2000. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press 64. 6Spiro Kostof, “The architect in the MiddleAges, East and West,” 60. The Thinning Space of Architecture depth, a view which reconciled the internal and external orders, the plan andthe elevation.” 4 During Byzantium’s architecture production (the end of theRoman Empire), roles and responsibilities in construction started to diversi- fy.5[ 2 ] The Middle Ages, encompassing diverse phases and territories, from thedecline of the Roman empire to the onset of the Renaissance—relied ona range of representational tools, including scaled parchment drawings, full- scale templates of details or building elements, and drawings at full scale, geometrically laid out with compasses and squares. Master masons and car- penters predominantly employed plan drawings to communicate geometricprinciples and to resolve constructive decisions and details. During this peri- od, architects were less frequently mentioned than patrons—who were oftencredited with the realization of buildings—and skilled masons.6 Architectur- al narratives, typically conveyed through ornamentation, were closely alignedwith ecclesiastical authority or the governing aristocracy. The role of thearchitect evolved into that of the master- builder, a figure responsible for boththe conception and supervision of construction. Knowledge and expertisewere transmitted through guilds and trade organizations. Visual and tectonicexpression emerged largely through the hands of craftspeople, often reflect- ing regional material practices and artisanal traditions. The rediscovery ofperspective by Filippo Brunelleschi in the 15th century—who is believed tohave worked predominantly with wooden models—enabled a more effectivepresentation of spatial experience than was possible through orthographicdrawing alone. Artists and architects took advantage of the tool, using sec- tion perspectives especially for building interiors. The manner in which thenew tools impacted architectural design can be seen in Michelangelo’s “con- structed” perspective of the Piazza Campidoglio in Rome [ 3 ] or Michelozzo’sdesign for the Tuscan city of Pienza. As with other tools and technologies, theuse of perspective has significantly influenced the architectural designprocess by shaping the visual representation of space; however, it still necessi- tates the architect or designer’s control over formal expression and the skillsneeded to construct the drawings. In comparison to the architect’s and artist’sskills needed to master historic representational tools, AI image generationrequires barely any training or expertise—machine learning takes on the gen- eration of the images. This simplification has the potential to shift thearchitect’s role towards a mere curator of machine-generated content, losingagency and abandoning the iterative development of structure and form. Historically, drawings became the primary medium of architecturalcommunication, while perspective emerged as the essential technique forrepresenting and designing architectural space—fundamentally transformingboth design practice and architectural treatises. An impact of this magnitude Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz 4 4Giuliano da Sangallo: Ruins of the Ancient RomanTheater of Marcellus, 1480s, Vatican LibraryCollection. Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain. 7Giovanni Antonio Pecci and Giuliano da San- gallo, Siennese Sketchbook of Giuliano da San- gallo. Library of Congress. (1490) https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667838/. 8Alberto Pérez-Gómez, “Architecture as Draw- ing,” Journal of Architectural Education JAE36, no. 2 (Winter 1982): 2. 9Alberto Perez-Gomez, “Architecture as Draw- ing,” 2. 10Mark Hewitt, “Representational Forms andModes of Conception: An Approach to theHistory of Architectural Drawing.” Journal ofArchitectural Education (1984-) 39, no. 2(1985): 2–9. https://doi.org/10.2307/1424961. 7. The Thinning Space of Architecture can be expected from the mechanics of the AI-generated images as well, allowing for an easier amalgamation of different architectural languages andoffering a set of new possibilities—and conundrums—for historicizing build- ings. The design methods of architects changed with the onset of Humanisminfluenced by a push to return to antique ideals. Biographers confirm that thearchitect, goldsmith, and sculptor Filippo Brunelleschi traveled to Rome tolearn from the principles of their architecture, working once more withantique precedents. It was common for architects to visit and study Romanruins to fill sketchbooks with measured as-built drawings, such as the onesby Giuliano da Sangallo (1445-1515).7[ 4 ] These drawings were used to edu- cate masons and builders back home, taking on the role of pattern books. Many others produced sketchbooks and drawing collections as well as theo- retical writings to instruct architects about reviving antiquity. Treatisesincreasingly distinguished the architect developing buildings from the masonand carpenter executing them. Text and drawings operated simultaneously asinstructions and a theoretical basis for architecture, while precedents servedas examples to learn from. All these elements of the design process remaincrucial when prompting AI to generate drawings or images. However, the ele- ments are not directly emerging out of the designer’s personal study, experi- ence, and evaluation. Technology has always been disruptive: the invention ofthe printing press fundamentally transformed the dissemination of informa- tion, making it accessible to a significantly broader audience. This technolog- ical breakthrough marked a revolution in information processing, compara- ble in scope and impact to the transformations currently unfolding with therise of generative AI. Disegno, encompassing both drawing and perspective, emerged as the conceptual and practical foundation of the architect’s role, extending from ideation to the management of construction. As AlbertoPérez- Goméz notes, the “Renaissance architectural drawing was perceived asa symbolic intention to be fulfilled in the building, while remaining anautonomous realm of expression.” 8 The architect recognized “that the dis- tance between idea and matter, between design and construction, would bereconciled through his own involvement in building.” 9 These observationshighlight the enduring significance of precedents and representation—bothvisual and textual—throughout the history of architectural design. Renaissance artists also cultivated the use of sketches as part of thedesign process. Leonardo da Vinci is credited with the trial- and-error modeof design,10 using abstract sketches as the basis of the development of designand ideas. In the centuries following the Renaissance, architecture as a pro- fession, discipline, and educational field became increasingly formalized. Architectural publications began to provide theoretical and methodologicalgrounding for practice. The École des Beaux-Arts in Paris influenced not Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz11Witold Rybczynski, “Ideas in Architecture,” The Yale Review 101, no. 4 (2013): 1. 12Dalibor Vesely, Architecture in the Age ofDivided Representation: The Question of Cre- ativity in the Shadow of Production (Cam- bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), 17. 13Dalibor Vesely, Architecture in the Age ofDivided Representation, 17. 14Dalibor Vesely, Architecture in the Age ofDivided Representation, 17. 15Dalibor Vesely, Architecture in the Age ofDivided Representation, 17. The Thinning Space of Architecture only architectural education in the 19th century and beyond, but also shapedtraditions of a detail-oriented, rendered version of architectural representa- tion and thus deeply influenced the way ideas were transmuted, communicat- ed, and visualized. Representations aimed at showing architecture in its mon- umental state and idealized reality. A curriculum based on competitions sup- ported skill building and the advancement of visualization techniques. Theselection of a ‘parti’ was crucial and would potentially guide the solutionalong a set of conditions given by the parti. 11 The Beaux-Arts representation- al conventions were replaced by a focus on technology and functionality asa driving force for design and expression. Architecture historian and theoristDalibor Vesely writes: “The primary conditions for a new relationship between architecture andtechnology were first established in the seventeenth century when a gapopened up between the traditional symbolic and instrumental representation. In this period, in the late seventeenth and the early eighteenth century, archi- tectural thinking, which had always been closely associated through its longhistory with the mathematical representation of its principles, was overtakenby the new developments in the natural sciences.” 12 This shift contributed to the establishment of engineering schools, which formalized the separation between structural and performance- basededucation and that of architectural design. Vesely identifies this period, beginning in the early 18th century, as marked by the “growing arbitrarinessof architectural decision making,” 13 a waning interest in classical traditions, and what he describes as a “discontinuity between the means and the contentof representation.” 14 Despite these shifts, Vesely argues that the “dual natureof symbolic and instrumental representation was preserved in the culturalmemory” 15 across centuries. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, various movements sought toreconcile technology with architecture. However, in doing so, technologyitself often became the dominant force, displacing the layered architecturalnarratives of the past. The 20th-century efforts to codify the principles ofdesign into rational laws and rules have proven insufficient in capturing thequalitative dimensions that contribute to a building’s quality. Along witha strong belief in rational functionality and the precision of technical draw- ing, artistic movements, such as Cubism, introduced the concept of fragmen- tal representation through collage in both fine arts and architecture. Thisapproach allowed for the simultaneous presence of elements from differentcontexts and media. Pioneered by artists such as Pablo Picasso and GeorgesBraque, the tendencies around cubism included abstracted ideas of space bymeans of geometric shapes, frequently with a political leaning embedded. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz16Colin Rowe and Robert Slutzky, “Transparen- cy: Literal and Phenomenal,” Perspecta 8(1963): 45–54. 17See a more comprehensive theory of layeringin architecture by author: Anne-CatrinSchultz, Carlo Sarpa: Layers (Stuttgart: A. Menges, 2007) and Anne-Catrin Schultz, Time, Space, and Material: The Mechanics ofLayering in Architecture (Stuttgart: EditionAxel Menges, 2015). The Thinning Space of Architecture The technique of combining photography and drawing to convey conceptualand spatial ideas was adopted by Mies van der Rohe and many others, serv- ing as a generative representational strategy across a range of architecturalprojects. Collage, as a design methodology, enabled the integration of diversevisual media and content into one composition. Overlapping possibly unre- lated fragments of space are simultaneously perceived, a phenomenon laterexamined as literal and phenomenal transparency. 16 Le Corbusier and otherswould translate the layered concepts17 into three-dimensional architectures, where overlapping spatial conditions could be experienced concurrently. While traditional graphic collages retain visible seams and discrete edges, AI- generated imagery tends to produce seamless integrations—collages in effect, but not in appearance. This shift, prefigured by the sophisticated use of digi- tal tools like Adobe Photoshop, marks a transition in representational aes- thetics from the visibly composite to the algorithmically synthesized. The Reversal of Tectonic Syntax Over the course of history, changes in formal expression have coincided withsocial evolution and technological progress. The early ideas regarding tecton- ics emerged from the analysis of Greek temples, where construction andexpression were understood as inherently linked. The discovery that Greektemples were originally covered in a layer of paint (highlighting sculpturaland architectural details) challenged prevailing perceptions of Greek archi- tecture, revealing a layered system that told stories through both structureand ornamentation. These archaeological findings, along with the ongoingsearch for the appropriate architectural expression in industrializing soci- eties, initiated the discourse of architectural tectonics. In the 19th Century, German archaeologist Karl Friedrich Boetticher examined architecturalexpression based on underlying structural and functional necessity, differen- tiating ontology from representation. He argued that a building’s ornamentallayer narrates its structural and material conditions, thereby uniting the twointo a single entity. Decorative elements illustrate the mechanical forces ormaterial conditions of the structure. Gottfried Semper expanded this dis- course with a comprehensive examination of artistic language connected topractical and material conditions of craftsmanship. He traced the origins ofarchitecture to textiles. For Semper, one of the most important elements ofarchitecture is derived from the knot created to connect yarn or terminatewoven fabric. Translated into built form, the knot became the joint or con- nection detail between components. The knot represented the beginning ofall expressive details and a tool for material transformations that wouldreverberate through the forms of previous technologies, even when Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz 5 5ChatGPT-generated Image. Prompt: Please designa contemporary building programmed as an officebuilding. Consider the tectonic theories ofGottfried Semper and make sure the facadeexpresses architecture's roots in the textile arts. (https://chatgpt.com/c/687d29ad-c654-8004-9f8c-7db6cff06c44) 18Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Cul- ture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenthand Twentieth Century Architecture, edited byJohn Cava (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), 2. 19Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Cul- ture, 2. 20J. Reiser and N. Umemoto. Atlas of Novel Tec- tonics (New York: Princeton ArchitecturalPress, 2006), 23. 21J. Reiser and N. Umemoto. Atlas of Novel Tec- tonics, 23. 22Anne Beim, Towards an Ecology of Tectonics: The Need for Rethinking Construction in Archi- tecture (Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Acad- emy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation, 2014), 20. 23N. D. Leach, D. Turnbull and C. Williams. Digi- tal Tectonics (Chichester: Wiley-Acade- my, 2004). 24W. Jabi, “Digital Tectonics: the intersection ofthe physical and the virtual” Paper presentedat ACADIA, http://papers.cumincad.org/data/ works/att/acadia04_256.content.pdf The Thinning Space of Architecture materiality had changed from soft textiles to brick and stone. In the 20th and21st centuries, theorists continued the explorations around tectonics, expand- ing its scope from the building as a separate object to a larger context of glob- al and regional conditions. [ 5 ] The architect, theorist, and educator Kenneth Frampton is well-knownfor writings that examine tectonics at a time when industrialized construc- tion dominated architecture production. Frampton clarifies that his studydoes not seek to deny the volumetric character of architectural form, butrather aims “to mediate and enrich the priority given to space by a reconsid- eration of the construction and structural modes by which, of necessity, it hasto be achieved.”18 He further emphasizes that the earthbound “nature ofbuilding is as tectonic and tactile in character as it is scenographic and visual, although none of these attributes deny its spatiality.” 19 This emphasis on thespatiality of architecture beyond its visual qualities is particularly notewor- thy. Frampton initiated a renewed and more differentiated look at tectonics, re-introducing the poetic and symbolic notions of construction during a timewhen modern and postmodern architecture had revealed its deficiencies. In 2006, architects Jesse Reiser and Nanako Umemoto published an ‘Atlas of Novel Tectonics,’ shifting the discourse from a static exploration toa dynamic one shaped by digital tools. They describe the transformation theyobserved: “We’ve gone from seeing temporal work in contrast to permanentarchitecture to seeing the temporal entering into the very fabric of architec- ture itself, rendering it ambient. […] We assert the primacy of material andformal specificity over myth and interpretation.” 20 For Reiser and Umemoto, the question no longer focuses on the question “What does this mean?” but “What does this do?”21 While Gottfried Semper explored methods of makingrooted in materiality and craftsmanship– along with the transformations ofmaterials over time–computational design and digital fabrication methodshave fundamentally altered how construction- related problems areapproached and resolved. Therefore, the question becomes “how is thisdone?” Variables have shifted and continue to shift from specific productsand trade conventions to parametric operations that are only recognizable assuch but not readable to the user. Contemporary tectonic theories movedbeyond the traditional expression of structural loads and material- appropri- ate craftsmanship to encompass the influence of digital tools and the envi- ronmental crisis, thereby linking the discourse to broader contemporarythemes. Anne Beim articulates an ecology of tectonics, embedding “the con- cept of buildings as parts tied together as a whole in a broader context of nat- ural and cultural systems.” 22 In the early 2000s, theories of “Digital Tecton- ics”23 emerged, operating at “the intersection of the physical and the virtu- al.”24 These theories explored the relationship between fabrication and the Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz25Branko Kolarevic, “Digital Fabrication: Manu- facturing Architecture in the Information Age,” in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conferenceof the Association for Computer Aided Designin Architecture (ACADIA), Buffalo, NY, October24– 27, 2001 (2001): 270. 26Rivka Oxman, “Informed Tectonics in Material- Based Design,” Design Studies 33, no. 5(2012): 427. 27Antoine Picon, “Architecture and the Virtual: Towards a New Materiality,” Praxis: Journal ofWriting + Building 6 (2004): 117. 28Antoine Picon, “Architecture and the Virtual: Towards a New Materiality,” 117. 29Antoine Picon, “Architecture and the Virtual: Towards a New Materiality,” 118. 30Antoine Picon, “Architecture and the Virtual: Towards a New Materiality,” 119. The Thinning Space of Architecture assembly of complex forms, merging tools of representation with those ofproduction and construction. Branko Kolarevic notes, “The predictable rela- tionships between design and representations are abandoned. The typologi- cal, curvilinear geometries are produced with the same ease as Euclideangeometries of planar shapes and cylindrical, spherical, or conical forms.”25Digitalization has also disrupted the predictable connections between struc- ture, materiality and expression. In this context Rivka Oxman introduces theterm “informed tectonics” 26 as a concept of material- based design, examin- ing a shifting taxonomy and new digitally driven materiality. Antoine Picondescribes the transformation in material culture resulting from digital toolsas the ability to manipulate light and texture in an infinite combination offactors. 27 He observes that these surface conditions allow any image to bemapped onto facades and architectural elements, often devoid of the tectonicimplications of physical materiality. 28 Picon also states that the gap betweendigital representation and traditional tectonics is not synonymous witha dematerialization of architecture, but merely a redefinition of materiality. 29Picon advocates for a redefinition of design objectives and procedures, a newvisual practice with the potential to navigate both local and global contexts. In times of crisis and instability the “distinction between abstraction andconcreteness” 30 become increasingly blurred. This is further evidenced bya shift from abstract sketches and conceptual diagrams during the schematicdesign phase to fully rendered images of finalized buildings generated frombrief textual descriptions. The evolution of tectonic theories mirrors thechanging landscape of digitalization of the design process, which simultane- ously reflects the cultural changes of everyday life. Again, it becomes evidentthat tools change process and outcome. As we remain immersed in thescreens of our cell phones, our perception of materiality becomes almost con- stantly mediated by images. Architecture has not dematerialized but hasabsorbed some of the surface characteristics of the image-saturated world inwhich it operates. Historically, the relationship between drawings and tectonics in thedesign process was closely tied to the moment of transition between repre- sentation to making, the handover to construction. In the industrialized con- tent of the 20th century, the design process typically followed a sequence ofphases: schematic or conceptual design, design development, and construc- tion or execution drawings. Perspectives and renderings were often producedlater in the process, either to reassure clients that the project was progressingas intended or to market the building to its future audience. With the declineof trade conventions and traditional materiality—particularly the shifttoward industrialized construction products—the generation of generativeideas (understood by the general public) became more arbitrary and Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz 6 7 8 6Chat GPT-generated Image 1/3. Prompt 1: Produce an image of a 2-storybuilding that is aware of tectonic conditions(structure, gravity etc.) and interprets thearchitecture of Carlo Scarpa. (https://chatgpt.com/share/68421aca-dc68-8004- ab14-02581aad33af) 7Chat GPT-generated Image 2/3. Prompt 2: This is very monolithic, pleaseadd a few overhangs, a wood trellis, and a moreproper, distinguished roof structure please. 8Chat GPT-generated Image 3/3. Prompt 3: This looks too much like it wasborrowed from Japanese architecture. Could youplease keep the roof lines straight and moremodern? Also add some color (blue) to thebuilding? 31Mario Carpo, The Second Digital Turn: DesignBeyond Intelligence (Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 2017). 4. 32Douglas C. Engelbart, Augmenting HumanIntellect: A Conceptual Framework (MenloPark, CA: Stanford Research Institute, 1962) https://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/papers/scanned/Doug_Engelbart-AugmentingHumanIntellect.pdf The Thinning Space of Architecture individual. According to Mario Carpo, this first digital turn in the 1990sallowed the variability that architects, designers, craftsmen, and engineerscraved. “Technology was meant to produce variations, not identical copies; customized, not standardized products.” 31 The road to mitigating the scale ofstandardized mass production and the embedded technical logic was and islong. The cost structure of digitally manufactured construction elements isdifferent from the conventionally industrialized version. [ 6 ][ 7 ][ 8 ] The Evolution of Artificial Intelligence in Architecture The impact of digital tools on the architecture design process and ultimatelyon the built environment can hardly be overstated. Computers have trans- formed the visualization and production of architecture, ultimately changingthe way architectural form itself is conceived and configured. Conceptualdesign in architecture has long served as a bridge between past experiencesand contemporary problem- solving, enabling the development of new spatialand formal ideas. Precedent studies remain integral to architectural practice( and education), offering inspiration and insight from existing built works, while sharing symbolic content. Computer- Aided Design (CAD) revolution- ized the design process and the production of drawings or models requiredfor construction, eventually evolving into Building Information Modeling( BIM). The design sequence, once rooted in hand-drawn sketches on tracingpaper and inked vellum, transitioned to digital representations of lines andvolumes on screen. Artificial Intelligence also emerged in the 1950s and 60sas general problem- solving machines. Paving the road for the presence of AIin design and beyond, a report written at Stanford in 1962 by Douglas C. Engelbart32 proposed that the integration of object-based design, parametricoperations, and relational databases could elevate architectural problem- solv- ing. While the report showcases the great potential of a general augmentationof the human intellect through the digital “clerk,” Engelbart uses anarchitect’s workflow as an example: Let us consider an ‘augmented’ architect at work. He sits at a workingstation that has a visual display screen some three feet on a side; this is hisworking surface and is controlled by a computer (his ‘clerk’) with which hecan communicate by means of a small keyboard and various other devices. He is designing a building. He has already dreamed up several basic layoutsand structural forms and is trying them out on the screen. The surveyingdata for the layout he is working on now have already been entered, and hehas just coaxed the ‘clerk’ to show him a perspective view of the steep hillsidebuilding site with the roadway above, symbolic representations of the varioustrees that are to remain on the lot, and the service tie points for the different Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz33Douglas C. Engelbart, Augmenting HumanIntellect: A Conceptual Framework, 4. 34Nicholas Negroponte, The ArchitectureMachine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970), 1, https://monoskop.org/images/1/1f/Negroponte_Nicholas_The_Architecture_Machine_1970. pdf. 35Nicholas Negroponte, The ArchitectureMachine, 9. 36INDESEM, “AI and the Future of Architecture – Neil Leach | INDESEM 2023,” YouTube video, 1:08:46, posted June 2, 2023, 4:29, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ3JOkQXRK0. 37Vilém Flusser, “The City as Wave-Trough inthe Image-Flood,” Critical Inquiry 31, no. 2(Winter 2005): 324. The Thinning Space of Architecture utilities. The view occupies the left two-thirds of the screen. With a ‘pointer,’ he indicates two points of interest, moves his left hand rapidly over the key- board, and the distance and elevation between the points indicated appear onthe right-hand third of the screen. […]”33 Engelbart’s vision of AI has, in part, materialized over the last decades. In 1969, Nicolas Negroponte voiced concerns that many might still shareabout architecture created by machines: “Computer- aided design cannotoccur without machine intelligence — and would be dangerous without it. Inour era, however, most people have serious misgivings about the feasibilityand, more importantly, the desirability of attributing the actions of a machineto intelligent behavior. […] As soon as intelligence is ascribed to the artifi- cial, some people believe that the artifact will become evil and strip us of ourhumanistic values. Or, like the great gazelle and the water buffalo, we will beplaced on reserves to be pampered by a ruling class of automata.” 34 Negro- ponte also anticipated that the future fluid and capable machines wouldremove the barriers between architects and computing machines, changingthe professional structures along the way. He writes: “With natural communi- cation, the ‘this is what I want to do’ and ‘can you do it’ gap could be bridged. The design task would no longer be described to a ‘knobs and dials’ person tobe executed in his secret vernacular. Instead, with simple negotiations, thejob would be formulated and executed in the designer’s own idiom. Asa result, a vibrant stream of ideas could be directly channeled from thedesigner to the machine and back.”35 Negroponte’s vision appears strikinglyaccurate in light of today’s large language models. The 1990s saw the rise ofneural networks and machine learning, which entered the mainstream dis- course and application. AI has gained increasing visibility in architecture inthe 2000s, with significant advancement and easier access in the 2020s. NealLeach looks for the “logic informing these systems,” 36 which is necessary tocomprehend the tectonic consequences of AI in the design process. From Idea (image) to Building The impact of the overwhelming presence of images has been the subject ofcommentary by theorists since the 1990s and early 2000s: Vilem Flusserobserved the phenomenon of the “image flood,” (referring to photographsand film) foreshadowing the intensified concentration of images on our cellphones in the 21st century. He writes, “We are accustomed, for example, tosee the solar system as a geographic place in which individual bodies orbitaround a larger one. We see it as such because it has been shown to us inimages, not because we have perceived it with our own eyes.”37 Architect andtheorist Juhani Pallasmaa attributes the bombardment of visual imagery to Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz38Juhani Pallasmaa. The Embodied Image: Imagi- nation and Imagery in Architecture (Chich- ester: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2011), 14. 39Juhani Pallasmaa. The Embodied Image: Imagi- nation and Imagery in Architecture, 14. 40Juhani Pallasmaa. The Embodied Image: Imagi- nation and Imagery in Architecture, 14. 41Juhani Pallasmaa. The Embodied Image: Imagi- nation and Imagery in Architecture, 19. 42Alberto Perez-Gomez, “Architecture as Draw- ing,” 6. 43Alberto Perez-Gomez, “Architecture as Draw- ing,” 6. 44The AI tools that are able to link conceptualimages to plans, sections, structure and sym- bolic narrative might exist at some point. Thisessay is examining the effect that image gen- eration has that is limited to a visual of theexterior of a building/complex in schemat- ic design. The Thinning Space of Architecture mass consumerism and globalized economies.38 He calls the profusion ofimages “a kind of suffocation in an endless Sargasso Sea of Images,”39 givingrise to “an oppressive feeling of excess and eutrophication. He argues that thephysical world, cities, and natural environments are all colonized by the(short-lived) image industry, questioning if the prevalence of the image push- es humankind back to prehistoric times of “gestures and images.”40 Pallas- maa argues that the physical world has become a “pale reflection of theimage,” possibly leading to the demise of imagination. For him, historicarchitecture was a vehicle to convey narratives and embody the meaning ofstability far beyond individual consumption. As if foreseeing the intensifiedloss of tectonic intention through AI-generated imagery, he writes: Today’s forceful imaging techniques and instantaneous architecturalimagery often seem to create a world of autonomous architectural fictions, which totally neglect the fundamental existential soil and objectives of the artof building. This is an alienated architectural world without gravity andmateriality, hapticism, and compassion.” 41 Pallasmaa refers to an absence of tectonics, a lack of material presencethat is brought about by a reality increasingly dominated by images. Flusser’simage flood and Pallasmaa’s Sargasso Sea of Images have only expanded inscale. Prompting an AI image generation tool to suggest a design for a build- ing initiates the process with an amalgam of references, seemingly collagedinto a proposed visual. If the role of a conceptual drawing is the “embodi- ment of architectural ideas,”42 what, precisely, is the role of the rendering orAI-generated image? Alberto Perez-Gomez asserts that: “Drawing is thearchitecture, a privileged vehicle for expressing architectural intentions: intentions that are poetic in a profound traditional sense, as poesis, as symbolmaking.” 43 The question of whether architectural design process can orshould be based on AI-assisted image generation of final buildings evokescenturies- old debates about architectural production. Issues of design repre- sentation, construction technology, and tectonics remain deeply intertwined. AI-generated images are produced by models trained on extensive datasets ofexisting images paired with textual annotations, reflecting historical visualpatterns rather than introducing novel creative concepts. Assuming a conceptidea emerges through a written prompt, the simultaneous consideration ofplan organization, access, sectional relationships, etc., must still to beaddressed separately; they are not (yet) integrated into the tool.44 The inten- tional message must come from the architect (or anyone else); political andcultural associations are difficult to trace unless explicitly embedded in theprompt. Architectural elements and forms drawn from a variety of contextscan’t convey a coherent cultural message – editing is necessary to maintaincontrol of the narrative, especially since AI’s sources and inspirations remain Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz 9 10 9Herzog and De Meuron, West-north-western viewof the library of the Eberswalde University forSustainable Development in Eberswalde, Eberswalde municipality, Barnim district, Brandenburg state, Germany 2005. CC BY-SA 4.0, (Photo: KAORYK) 10Herzog and De Meuron, University library in Cottbus by the architects Herzog & de Meuron, 2005. CC BY-SA 3.0 (photo: Alexandru.giurca) 45See more about layering in architecture: Anne-Catrin Schultz, Time, Space, and Materi- al: The Mechanics of Layering in Architecture( Stuttgart: Edition Axel Menges, 2015). 46Alicia Imperiale, New Flatness: Surface Ten- sion in Digital Architecture (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2000), 5. 47Herzog & de Meuron, “166 IKMZ BTU Cottbus– Information, Communications and MediaCentre, Brandenburg University of Technolo- gy,” Herzog & de Meuron, accessed August 1,2025, https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/projects/166-ikmz-btu-cottbus-information-communications-and-media-centre-brandenburg-university-of-technology/. The Thinning Space of Architecture completely unknown. AI-generated images represent a form of collage that ismuch more advanced than the fragmented collages of the early 20th centurydesign. The elements are fused into a seamless whole, and the layered over- laps that once allowed for the simultaneous existence of discrete objects andspatial narratives are no longer readily apparent. 45 The rise of social media, the use of Pinterest boards (and other similarwebsites and applications) in design, and society’s increasing focus of societyon imagery have contributed to the evaluation of architecture primarilythrough visual appearance rather than spatial experience. This shift is drivenby the pervasive presence of images and screens, and perhaps by a lack ofcultural and spatial education and public awareness. The dominance of theimage and resulting loss of depth is not a new phenomenon and has beenwidely discussed. Alicia Imperiale, writing in 2000, identified the resultingreduction of depth and emphasis on surface as a profound issue. She uses theterm “flat” to describe the paper or screen, and “surface” when referring to “issues that develop when architecture is built, when the emphasis shifts fromthe flatness of the representational space to the depth of the three-dimen- sional building.” 46 The ubiquity of images has appeared in façade design andarchitectural surfaces in a literal fashion, moving the attention from material- ity to the surface. The façade as screen emerged in the early 2000s, withmedia facades and projections entering the architectural repertoire. Theimage appeared on facades as a thin layer printed on glass or the exteriorskin. Facades as surfaces to print on, just as paper, also expressed society’soverall affinity to images. Herzog and De Meuron’s university libraries inEberswalde and in Cottbus, both in Germany, illustrate the use of images onconcrete and on glass. The skins of both libraries do not express structuralforces or tectonic articulation; instead, they highlight the programmaticfunction of the buildings. The facades become commentary on the usage ofthe buildings, in both cases, their role as libraries and archives. The volumesfollow a logic distinct from the visual language of the facades. In Cottbus, thebuilding evokes associations of scrolls of paper. The architects refer to theglass skin imprinted with highly pixelated lettering as cladding the building “like a veil.”47 [ 9 ] [ 10 ] When employing an AI model that ingests broadly sourced, non-curat- ed data from across the internet, the resulting image constitutes a synthesis ofprior architectural forms and visual conventions. Rather than producing gen- uinely novel outputs, such models tend to recombine and recontextualize his- torical data, yielding visuals that reflect accumulated cultural artifacts morethan intentional innovation. To move beyond mere recombination of existingpatterns, the architect’s design literacy and creative agency become essential. A critical emerging skill for architects and designers will be the precise crafti- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz48Christina Hilger, “2. Raum und Vernetzung,” inVernetzte Räume, ed. Christina Hilger (Biele- feld: transcript Verlag, 2014), 14, https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839414996.53. The Thinning Space of Architecture ng of text prompts, paired with the ability to critically assess facades andmodels whose origins remain obscured. Political associations and consistentcultural messages will be left to the correcting hand of the designer, having todecode the conceptual framework instead of creating it. Conceptual princi- ples that go beyond visual expression are difficult to embed. Gravity is nota factor in language- to-image generation, and the tectonic logic therefore hasto be applied after the fact, which is the opposite of a process that starts withan abstract geometric, functional, and contextual concept that expands inspecificity through alterations. Concluding Remarks In this examination of the potential impact of AI-generated images on thearchitectural design process and its outcome, it becomes evident that archi- tectural design has historically relied on the interplay of images and prece- dents to reinvent expressions, typologies, and spaces. As building conven- tions shifted across societies and time frames, they involved the re-crafting ofembedded messages into new narratives, alongside evolving technologies ofrepresentation and construction. A similar impact is to be expected from dig- ital tools, particularly as they transition from replicating pre-digital tasks(drafting conventional sets of drawings for design communication, engineer- ing coordination, and construction) to actively shaping design processes andtectonic possibilities. The consequences of a digitally driven design processhave already led to profound changes in architectural expression. In somecases, this has resulted in dynamic parametric designs; in others, it has con- tributed to a thinning of architectural space and substance, raising questionsabout the tectonic presence of materials and structures. Digitalization hasenabled design approaches that rely on algorithms and parametric modeling, establishing relationships between elements through a range of parameters. Yet, the spatial understanding of the 21st century continues to be informed bymodernist ideals and the legacy of industrialized construction methods. 48With the image flood discussed above, now amplified by vast quantities of AI- generated representations, considerations around architectural space risksbecoming obsolete. Architects may unintentionally relinquish their author- ship of the architectural narrative that has historically allowed them toembed both symbols and critical commentary related to politics and socialconventions. Architecture increasingly becomes image, potentially communicatedthrough what might be termed machine hallucinations. Space hasn’t beenexplored as a resource for contemporary society with the same dedication asvisual representation in contemporary discourse. Michael Hensel observes, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz49Michael Hensel, Achim Menges, and Christo- pher Hight, Space Reader: HeterogeneousSpace in Architecture (Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 2009), 11. The Thinning Space of Architecture that while space (naturally) continues to play an active role, “our repertoire ofspatial concepts and our ability to understand and work with them remainrelatively underdeveloped compared to the formal innovations, programmat- ic savvy and critical sophistications of the past decades.”49 What DouglasEngelbert referred to the “augmented architect” demands a transformation ineducation and skillsets, one that reconciles the internal and external orders ofarchitecture. While future AI software may significantly expand architecture’sgenerative potential—including spatial and organizational configurations, code compliance, and engineering coordination–the uncritical use of fin- ished imagery derived from unknown and uncited sources poses an opportu- nity for novel expression and risk of losing all intentional narrative. The lackof focus on spatial qualities might get intensified by AI-generated solutions, or the confluence of all digital tools might lead to profound innovation anda renewed spatiality. Counteracting a tempting invitation to forego the criti- cal evaluation of the evolving tectonic conditions of architecture, all emerg- ing technology must be assessed for its capacity to support the built environ- ment in expressing human culture and addressing the challenges of the 21stcentury. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz The Thinning Space of Architecture Bibliography As, I., Pal, S., Basu, P. Artificial intelligence in architecture: Generating conceptual design via deeplearning. International Journal of Architectural Computing. 2018;16(4):306-327. DOI:10.1177/1478077118800982. Beim, Anne. Towards an Ecology of Tectonics: The Need for Rethinking Construction in Architecture. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design andConservation, 2014. Cantale, Claudia, Domenico, Stufano Melone, Rosaria, Maria. “The ideal Benedictine Monastery: Fromthe Saint Gall map to ontologies,” Applied Ontology 16 (2021): 137-160. DOI:10.3233/AO-210248. Carpo, Mario. The Second Digital Turn: Design Beyond Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017. Engelbart, Douglas Carl. Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute, 1962. https://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/papers/scanned/Doug_Engelbart-AugmentingHumanIntellect.pdf. Flusser, Vilém. “The City as Wave-Trough in the Image-Flood.” Critical Inquiry 31(2005): 320–328. Frampton, Kenneth. Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and TwentiethCentury Architecture, edited by John Cava. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. Ga¨nshirt, Christian. Tools for Ideas: Introduction to Architectural Design. Basel: Birkha¨user, 2021. Herzog & de Meuron. “166 IKMZ BTU Cottbus – Information, Communications and Media Centre, Brandenburg University of Technology.” August 1, 2025. https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/projects/166-ikmz-btu-cottbus-information-communications-and-media-centre-brandenburg-university-of-technology/. Hewitt, Mark. “Representational Forms and Modes of Conception: An Approach to the History ofArchitectural Drawing.” Journal of Architectural Education 2 (1985): 2–9. https://doi.org/10.2307/1424961. Hilger, Christina. “Raum und Vernetzung.” In Vernetzte Räume, edited by Christina Hilger, 53–78. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2014. https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839414996.53. Leach, Neil. “AI and the Future of Architecture –INDESEM 2023.” YouTube video, 1:08:46. June 2, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ3JOkQXRK0. Imperiale, Alicia. New Flatness: Surface Tension in Digital Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2000. Jabi, Wassim. “Digital Tectonics: The Intersection of the Physical and the Virtual.” Paper presented atACADIA, 2004. http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/acadia04_256.content.pdf. Kolarevic, Branko. “Digital Fabrication: Manufacturing Architecture in the Information Age.” inProceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture(ACADIA), Buffalo, NY, October 24–27, 2001, 268–278. Kostof, Spiro. “The Practice of Architecture in the Ancient World: Egypt and Greece.” In The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, ed. by Spiro Kostof, 5. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Leach, Neil, David Turnbull, and Williams, Chris. Digital Tectonics. Chichester: Wiley-Academy, 2004. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne-Catrin Schultz The Thinning Space of Architecture Negroponte, Nicholas. The Architecture Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970. Oxman, Rivka. “Informed Tectonics in Material-Based Design.” Design Studies 33, no. 5 (2012): 427-455. Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture. Chichester: JohnWiley & Sons, 2011. Pecci, Giovanni Antonio, and da Sangallo, Giuliano. Sangallo’s Sienese Sketchbook. ca. 1490–1516. Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667838/. Pérez-Gómez, Alberto. “Architecture as Drawing.” Journal of Architectural Education 36, no. 2 (Winter1982): 2–7. Picon, Antoine. “Architecture and the Virtual: Towards a New Materiality.” Praxis: Journal ofWriting + Building 6 (2004): 114–121. Reiser, Jesse, and Umemoto, Nanako. Atlas of Novel Tectonics. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006. Rybczynski, Witold. "Ideas in Architecture." The Yale Review 101, no. 4 (2013): 1-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/tyr.2013.0022. Schultz, Anne-Catrin. Carlo Scarpa: Layers. Stuttgart: Edition Menges, 2007. Schultz, Anne-Catrin. Time, Space, and Material: The Mechanics of Layering in Architecture. Stuttgart: Edition Menges, 2015. Sekler, Eduard. “Structure, Construction, Tectonics.” In Structure in Art and Science, edited by GyörgyKepes. New York: G. Braziller, 1965. Vesely, Dalibor. Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation: The Question of Creativity in theShadow of Production. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004. GravitivityArchitecture’s Defiance in aPost-Structural Society Matej Blenkuš Maja Dobnik Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik Gravitivity Introduction The thematic focus of the journal – namely the programming of architecturein relation to its tectonic narrative – is reflected in the following articlethrough questioning whether, in contemporary architecture, the relationshipbetween the programmatic structuring of a building’s content and its meansof construction remains relevant in a time of post-structural social relations. The tectonics of buildings, grounded in their recognizable articulation andsyntax – which we, in principle, compare to so-called solid structures – arecontrasted with the dynamics of bodies without organs and desiring machines, as theorized by philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. On the basis of theoretical insights into architecture as a dynamicresponsive form, which are considered through the widely disseminated con- cept of temporal layers closely related to architect Stewart Brand, we relativizethe importance of tectonically and thematically consistent buildings. PartI explains that in a time when architectural form is constantly transforming – driven by the economic and social currents of contemporary society – suchconsistency is subject to strong formal disintegration that gradually erodesand undermines the meaning and identity of contemporary architecture. Through analysis of the various manifestations of temporal layers, it isemphasized that the dynamic responsiveness of architecture is not only con- nected to utility and economy but also addresses its users in an existentialsense – through its relations to gravity, matter, mass, and time. Brand’s understanding of architecture’s capacity for continuous adapta- tion and transformation is often cited as a tool for a pragmatic and sustain- able response to current economic, social and environmental needs. Yet, asan argument for our thesis – that through the dynamics of changing architec- tural form architecture’s identity is gradually dissolved – we present severalexamples of contemporary architecture that manifest the influence of the lay- ering of the building's skin on the potential dissolution of its meaning andidentity. Citing several examples of temporal layering in contemporary build- ings and public spaces, we posit the thesis that among all of the layers, a building’s structural system plays a critical role in enabling architecture towithstand the increasingly invasive influences of a post-structural society. Part II introduces the concept of gravitivity, where unlike the tectonicconstitution of buildings, we explain those design principles that allow archi- tecture to embody temporal and spatial resistance. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik1In this article, the phrase “to think society” isemployed as the translation of the Sloveneexpression “misliti družbo”. Its meaningextends beyond the more ordinary sense of “to think about society” and conveys a philo- sophical connotation: it designates a mode ofconceptual reflection, a way of thinking thatseeks to “re-think” society as a whole, takingit as an object of thought in its entirety. 2In essence, the term “solid structures” describes solid and strong, established rela- tionships between the elements that consti- tute a whole. In the context of a social order, it can stand for repressive regimes, in whichrelationships between an individual and pow- er are strictly defined, and any changesthwarted or limited to the minimum. 3The phrase function under refers to the so- called solid structures. 4Here, the word “psychoanalysis” refers toFreud and focuses on an individual’s internalconflicts, in the first place the Oedipus com- plex, which places desire in the framework ofthe family structure and prohibition. Deleuzeand Guattari’s perspective is different – theycriticise the reduction of desire to a familydrama (hence Anti-Oedipus). 5See Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti- Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), 286–289. Gravitivity In the Face of Solid Structures It is axiomatic that Architecture, as a social activity, is deeply embeddedwithin its historical socio-political context. Contemporary architecture oper- ates within an unpredictable and rapidly changing context of global capital- ism in which recognizable social structures are becoming increasingly diffi- cult to discern. More specifically, emergent social conditions are usurpingpreviously predictable power relations and institutional modes of operations. In their collaborative work Anti-Oedipus, French philosophers GillesDeleuze and Félix Guattari drew a telling picture of this situation. Anti-Oedi- pus will serve as the basis for an overview of the practice of architecture inincreasingly uncertain times, as we believe that – although they are far frombeing the only authors to analyse contemporary social dynamics – they pos- sess the interpretative power that offers critical insight into social processes. Rather than offering straightforward answers, their critically provocativechallenging of established social conventions proffers questions and newways of thinking society1. Although the authors describe social structures bydeveloping definitions and conceptual networks that do not address architec- ture per se, we can nevertheless apply their theoretical baselines to the role ofarchitecture in the contemporary world. In their texts, Deleuze and Guattari shed light on the socio-structuralrelationships that are evident yet systemically hidden from us; they describethose social process that continually take place before us. Their goal is clear: to demystify, by means of careful analysis, rigid, hier- archical, controlling social systems – so-called solid structures2 – that placeindividuals into predefined positions within institutional and ideologicalframeworks, and function under3 the pretext of objectivity, understood as aninevitable process of structuring contemporary social organisations. ButDeleuze and Guattari claim otherwise: social processes are not systemicallyestablished beforehand, but evolve organically, from themselves. According to Deleuze and Guattari life takes place outside strictlydefined systems. It is non-linear, chaotic, and embedded in flows of desire. The authors centre their writing around the concept of desire, and unlikepsychoanalysis4 define it as a productive and creative force – the force thatgenerates social connections, relationships, and new possibilities of opera- tion. This constitutes the basis for their concept of “desiring machines” (machines désirantes), which can be described as the basic unit of socialdynamics. To be more precise – desiring machines take part in social life andconnect bodies with people’s desires in concrete processes of functioning inthe material world.5 Desiring machines are always already embedded in, butnever completely defined by social conditions. Their connecting is not hiera- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik6See Gilles Deleuze, “Gilles Deleuze and FélixGuattari on Anti-Oedipus,” in Negotiations, 1972–1990, trans. Martin Joughin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 22. 7See Félix Guattari, “Balance- Sheet for ‘Desir- ing-Machines,’” in Chaosophy: Texts and Inter- views 1972–1977, ed. Sylvčre Lotringer, trans. David L. Sweet, Jarred Becker, and TaylorAdkins (New York: Semiotext(e), 2009), 90– 115. 8Throughout this article, similar formulationsappear in which collective or abstract phe- nomena (e.g. architecture, society) are usedas grammatical subjects. Such phrasing doesnot suggest that buildings or society as suchliterally act or survive, but rather that we arereferring to architectural practice or socialprocesses in general. This shorthand reflectsthe original usage of Slovene and should beunderstood accordingly. Gravitivity rchical, but networked – they connect with other operations that “are think- ing, feeling and working in similar directions.” 6 They define their own modeof operation, i.e. acting irrespective of socially determined conditions and sol- id structures. Desiring machines are only able to function this way because of “bodies without organs” (corps sans organes) – conceptual fields where desirecan work beyond social hierarchies. Bodies without organs can be defined intwo ways: firstly, they are an example of anti-structures, where desire operatesirrespective of the pre-set order. It is for this reason that they, secondly, rep- resent the basis for new, unpredictable possibilities of action.7 Summerly, bodies without organs are unstable, changing forms subordinated to continu- ous changing desires, thus allowing them an open field of action: a dynamic, unstable, and open structure where possibilities emerge that are not predeter- mined, but are created through the desire desire emanating from bodies. As aforenoted, contemporary architecture operates within a rapidlychanging world in which solid – social – structures are increasingly difficultto recognise. To be able to survive in such an unstable and unpredictableworld, architecture has developed ways of adapting to new expectations, desires and behaviours of its users.8 Risking oversimplification, we neverthe- less feel compelled to note that such an architectural practice, subordinatedto ongoing social dynamics, is becoming increasingly similar to the logic ofbodies without organs. Architecture is becoming less identifiable, both interms of use (program) and meaning (what it communicates). Here is where, if we understand architecture as a social activity inDeleuze and Guattari’s terms, an important contradiction occurs in theunderstanding of architecture as a social activity. Although the authors fore- ground unorganized and non-hierarchical action, it cannot be completelydenied that a certain measure of order and organisation remains necessary forone’s existence in the world. Our premise is that architecture plays a key role, as in its essence it is subject to certain laws of physics and spatial limitations. It is therefore important that we understand solid structures in their othersense – as an internal logic of architecture itself which is based on order, com- position, organisation, and laws of construction. In other words: for architec- ture to be able to manifest itself in the material world, it requires a certainorder – a structure that makes its function and meaning possible. On this basis, we can discern a certain duality of contemporary architec- ture. On the one hand, architecture is inevitably bound to order, structure, and the material conditions that make its very existence possible. On the oth- er, it allows for processes to unfold within a social field that is increasinglyunstable, non-linear, and shaped by flows of desire. To better understand howthis duality is expressed in space, we can explore it through the concept of Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik9In the article, the concept of the architecturalskin will be presented and examined ingreater detail. In the continuation of the text, the term skin will be used to describe thecomplex, multi- layered material envelope sur- rounding space. This is to be distinguishedfrom the term envelope, which in the articlerefers to the individual layers of the spatialenclosure. For a proper understanding of thetext, it is important to emphasize that the skinis composed of multiple envelopes. As will bedescribed further on, each envelope followsdifferent principles and possesses distincttemporal and material characteristics. 10The concept of “becoming” is derived fromGerman word werden. 11See Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti- Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), 96. 12See Stewart Brand, How buildings learn: whathappens after they're built (New York: PenguinBooks, 1994). 13See Frank Duffy, Measuring Building Perfor- mance (London: Facilities, 1990), 17–20. 14See Dietmar Eberle, baumschlager eberle: 200100 50 20 10 (Vienna: TU Wien, 2015). Gravitivity temporal layers. These allow us to think of architecture not only as a materialconstruct governed by physical laws, but also as a practice embedded in time. Part ITemporal Layers To understand how described social relations reflect in architectural space weshould first define what it is that forms the space of architecture. Eventhough space is characterized as a void, that is an absence of matter, an emptyspace defined by its own characteristics and properties of limiting surfaces, its manifestation is only possible through the materialization of the physicalenvelope that surrounds it. Architectural space is therefore defined by thematerialization of its skin.9 We have above posited that contemporary social relations, driven bypost-structural social forces, defy architectural space. In addition to its ownmetabolism and ongoing reproduction, the continuum of functioning desir- ing machines and bodies without organs also requires a constant metabolictransformation of the space in which desiring machines operate. This processnever stops running and takes place at different timescales. Metabolism ofspace is a reflection of the dynamics shaped by contacts, interplays, contrac- tions, transformations and metabolisms of contemporary society’s contentsand activities. Its key trait is best described with the concept of becoming10, which in philosophical terms replaces the concept of being. Nothing is justwhat it is anymore, but is already that, which it is always becoming anew. Deleuze and Guattari say as much when they write that becoming means togenerate movement that does not follow a template. 11 The architectural space of becoming is therefore a space capable of itsown continual transformation from one form to another, from one material- ization to another, but with no final form. The question of dynamic transfor- mation, metabolism and reproduction of space, through its material skin istherefore the key to understanding the relationship between social processesand architectural space. An important shift in the understanding of the post-structuralist ontol- ogy of space occurred when architecture began to be understood primarilythrough the dimension of time at the expense of the dimension of space. Theformal framework that allows for such conceptualisation of architecturalspace, firstly through its formation of the dynamic skin compound of variousenvelopes, can be found in the concept of shearing layers developed by Amer- ican architect Stewart Brand 12 , as well as in Francis Duffy's four layers of timein buildings 13 , and in the lecture 200, 100, 50, 20, 10 by Austrian architectDietmar Eberle14. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik Gravitivity According to the cited authors, understanding how architecture operates overan extended period of time requires us to accept that its adaptations andtransformations occur at different intervals and in different parts of a build- ing. The authors therefore divided the constituent elements of buildings intolayers, with the aim of more precisely defining the causes and formal conse- quences of the changes that take place within them. Stewart Brand and Fran- cis Duffy base their approach on the principles of pragmatic adaptation ofbuildings to the inevitably necessary changes over a longer period of time. Indoing so, they look for models in vernacular and anonymous architecture. Dietmar Eberle, by contrast, is considerably more academic in his interpreta- tion, attempting – through the naming of individual building componentsand their expected lifespans (200 years, 100 years, etc.) – to define the poten- tial impact on the identity and meaning of construction in a specific culturalcontext. For him, temporal layers also represent a framework for understand- ing tradition and continuity. All three approaches to understanding the structure and functioning ofa building envelope share the idea that the skin that defines architecturalspace is composed of several envelopes broken down into layers that can betransformed or replaced independently and in different intervals. Thebuilding’s skin, and consequently also the architectural spaces which it sur- rounds, are no longer homogenous, but split into onion-like layers. Sincethey are defined by their expected lifetime and rates of change, we can callthese layers the temporal layers of the architectural skin. Said authors, whoagree that architectural space materializes through temporal layers, each pro- pose a different set of layers that are key to understanding the hierarchicallystructured, but contextually and technically independent layering of thearchitectural envelope: Brand identifies six, Eberle five, and Duffy four lay- ers. They differ in the detail to which they break down the internal spatialseparations in various spaces (the innermost layer of the building skin) andthe importance they attribute to the physically invisible, yet normative enve- lope of the urban structure (the outermost layer). All of them identified fourfundamental layers: the structural framework, internal partitions, installa- tions and other mechanical systems, and various contents and activities, which materialize with equipment and other objects in a building’s interior. It should be noted that, at least for Brand and Duffy, the reason for suchunderstanding of the building structure is in the first-place pragmatic. It hasto do with the building’s capacity to react to changing expectations anddesires of its users and adapt to the ongoing technological progress thatallows buildings to maintain “technical” pace with the times. Both Brand andDuffy make it clear that “layer- less” buildings, unable to allow for flexiblechanges and adaptations, are rigid, and incapable of keeping up with their Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik15Ibid. 16We call “city-forming” those elements of theurban fabric that are capable of creating, through the nature of their design, coordinat- ed dimensions and relative longevity, a con- tinued, relatively homogeneous, and hierar- chically organized form of open urban space. Gravitivity own progress. Rather than a multi- layered structure based on a philosophicalunderstanding of the buildings life-span, for them temporal layers are in facta utilitarian and pragmatic reaction to a society of rapid change, needs, andspatial transformations. However, Eberle is much more cautious: He recog- nizes in temporal layers also the potential keepers of tradition, long-termmeaning and resistance in space.15 The umbrella principle of temporal layers implies that the layers ofa building’s material envelope follow one another based on their longevity, from the longest- to the shortest- lasting, as a rule from the outside in. A building’s exterior form is long-lasting, steadfast, and in turn city-form- ing.16 It is materially and formally defined by the temporal layer with thelongest lifetime. Gradually moving from the exterior of the building to itsinterior – towards its actual use – we see internal divisions and partitionsemerge which are increasingly closely associated with the building’s changingcontents and users. The authors admit that commercial buildings are themost dynamic, followed by residential buildings, and only then follow publicbuildings. Such layering makes sense, both ontologically and programmati- cally, because it regulates the relationship between (exterior) public interestand expectations of the masses, and one’s personal (interior) desires andexpectations. The permanent, the common, and the public unfolds outwards, whereas the individual and the private remain more or less covered within. The names of the layers differ in the works of Brandt, Duffy, and Eberle. For easier understanding and for the purposes of our article, we will assignnames to the layers while remaining consistent with the logic that Brandtpresented as the original classification. Thus, we will designate the layer thatdefines the geographical setting, lot or urban location of a building as theplace (originally, according to Brandt: the site). The layer that encompassesthe building’s façade and roof envelope will be designated as the envelope( originally: the skin). The layer that entails the load-bearing system, i.e. allstructural elements of a building, will be called the skeleton (originally: thestructure). The layer that consists of technical equipment and other installa- tions in a building that support its mechanical operation will be referred to asthe technology (originally: the service). The layer that defines the interior lay- out of programmes and activities that take place in a building as well as allpartitions and separation elements that allow for diverse and physically sepa- rated use of a building’s interior, will be designated as the layout (originally: the space plan). The innermost layer, which includes all movable and partlymovable furniture and other equipment used in a building, will be called theequipment (originally: the stuff). This explanation aims to provide readerswith a clearer understanding of the individual layers while maintaining con- ceptual consistency with Brandt’s terminology. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik17Based on Alejandro Zaera-Polo and Jeffrey S. Anderson, The Ecologies of Building Envelope: A Material History and Theory of ArchitecturalSurfaces (New York in Barcelona: Actar Pub- lishers, 2021). 18See Stewart Brand, How buildings learn: whathappens after they're built (New York: PenguinBooks, 1994), 153. 19A closer look at the morphology of a mobilehome shows that its design combines two ofBrand's temporal layers, namely Structure andSkin. Since the two layers are inseparable, a container’s structure to a large extentserves as its thermal envelope. The transfor- mation and development of mobile homes istherefore very fast; its users add a new, inde- pendent skin, giving the generic image of theindustrial product a more individual appear- ance, or a new façade as a more authenticexpression of the user’s desires andexpectations. 20We see a hierarchically organised space asa planned, regulated process where the urbanform – a building’s dimensions – is notdefined from bottom- up, i.e. based on individ- ual inhabitant’s interests, but is planned andcontrolled by a higher- order institution, localadministration, region, or state. 21The timeframe is set between 1990 and 2000, when global socio-political changes acceler- ated the processes and dynamics of interven- tions in both the content and form of build- ings, whether existing or planned. 22Driven by the urgent need for ongoing expo- nential growth, liberal economy reproducesitself through economic mutants, “start-up” enterprises that more often than not producenonsense, but expecting undreamed-of revivalthey nevertheless allow themselves the possi- bility of a sudden economic break-through. These adventures are usually extremely short- lived, but their spatial needs are immediateand always dynamic. 23One of the most evident consequences of thisprocess is the “energy efficiency retrofitting” process, generously supported by financialincentives and grants, which uncritically dis- turbs the formal and programmatic design ofthe exterior building envelope – as a com- pletely separate process whose efficiency ismeasured with non-spatial indicators. Gravitivity A more detailed reading of Brand’s approach, however, reveals that the “fast” layers are positioned also on the exterior side of the building’s skin, whoseresistant, long-lasting structural core is thus often obscured by rapidly chang- ing temporal layers from both the inner and the outer side. Most of the rea- sons for this structural specificity derive from the industrial development ofthe building envelope. In approximately eighty years the solid, rigid, weaklyporous standard masonry envelope which was the most common buildingtechnique in Europe and was commonplace until the mid-19th century, evolved into a complex technology- based semi-permeable and transparentenvelope subject to constant progress, upgrades, and improvements. 17 If buildings are notoriously transformed in their interiors by the dynam- ics of changing contents, desires, and consumer habits of their users, theirexternal appearance is constantly shedding and altering just as rapidly asfaçade-envelope technology evolves, enabling the maintenance of increasing- ly more and more rigid indoor climatic conditions. As a result, the rigid tem- poral layer of the skeleton, both from the outer and inner side, is veiled by thelogic of fast fashion. Brand points to the above as conservatively progressive; building his case on examples of growing organisms of building types, suchas mobile homes and bungalows; he goes so far as to relativize even the mostenduring of layers, the place, only to legitimize it in the process of its ownreproduction, multiplication and fractalisation as temporally sustainable andthus legitimate in the long term.18 His interpretation of growing “roots” ofmobile home compounds19 reads as a case of modern vernacular, or asa model of architecture’s capacity to conform to the needs of its users in a dis- tinctly pragmatic, spatially non-hierarchical20 manner. But architecture’s short-lived, two-sided envelope opens the door to spa- tial schizophrenia and decomposition of a recognizable identity. Schizo- phrenic because through continual changes of the interior and exteriorappearance of a building the two gradually move away from one another, each acquiring its own independent identity alienated from more sustainableand long-lived temporal layers. This means that even if a building was origi- nally designed with all its temporal layers in visual harmony, its external andinternal layers are gradually abandoning their original identity and distinc- tiveness. Architecture has had to live with the consequences of the phenome- non described above for roughly 30 years21, faced with trends like the rapidsurge in “start-ups”22, and sustainability- driven technological revival inbuilding technology and facade envelopes23 – all the while with an efficiency– and profit- driven capitalist modernity gradually dissolving architecturebeyond recognition, into a state of obscurity, schizophrenia, andmeaninglessness. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik24Svetlana Pushkar, “Application of life cycleassessment to various building lifetime shear- ing layers: Site, structure, skin, services, space, and stuff,” Journal of Green Building 10, no. 2 (2015): 198–214. 25Vesna Krmelj, Cukrarna, Umetnine v žepu 3(Ljubljana: Umetnostnozgodovinski inštitutFranceta Steleta, ZRC SAZU, 2010), 14. Gravitivity Irrespective of whether Brand’s understanding of temporal layers is the causeor result of current social relations described in the first chapter, the aboveleads us to assume that his interpretation of multi- layered materiality of theskin of an architectural space is directly related to the concept of bodies with- out organs in which desiring machines live their fast and short-lived dreams. By articulating the structure of the building envelope into temporal layers – capable of responding autonomously to social needs, expectations, anddesires, independent of the coherent core of the building – architecturalspace has become able to function as seamless bodies without organs. Thetransformation of space, in line with the needs and expectations of society, now unfolds smoothly and without conflict. The schizophrenic compositionof the individual temporal layers of the architectural skin allows it to contin- uously adapt and yield to these needs and desires. It is for that, perhaps ironic, reason one can see how Brand’s scheme ofshearing layers of change has been applied by several sources24 as one of thecriteria in life-cycle assessment of sustainable building design. Ironic becausethe key value of a sustainable society is not only its capacity for constant andprompt adaptation, but also its resistance and ability to uphold values and itsidentity and to materialize memory. Cukrarna Gallery: The Displaced Logic of Temporal Layers As previously explained, the concept of temporal layers, allows buildings tomanifest themselves through several formally distinctive parts which evolvein various time cycles, thus constructing their specific, long- and short-termidentity mostly defined by their time intervals. But what happens when thislogic is reversed – when the idea of layers is evident, but displaced, deformed, placed outside its own, characteristic utilitarian framework? Cukrarna Gallery, located in the centre of Ljubljana, Slovenia, whosetemporal layers are distinct and thus identifiable, is our first example, not interms of any typical hierarchy or sequence of temporal layers as described byBrand, Eberle and Duffy, but as en example of their disarray due to thebuilding’s relation to the phenomena of bodies without organs. The building, built in 1828, was originally a sugar factory. In 2021 Cukrana was completelyrenovated and, through extensive structural and programmatic modifica- tions, transformed into a contemporary art gallery. Over the centuries, itspurpose changed significantly: first, with the introduction of new sugar pro- duction technologies, manufacturing was gradually abandoned, and after theearthquake of 1895, “Cukrarna assumed an unusual role as a refuge for themost vulnerable members of society: earthquake victims, artists, children, patients, released prisoners, and newcomers without shelter.” 25 Among other Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 1 2 1Scapelab, Cukrarna Gallery, 2021, interior. Photo byMiran Kambic. © Scapelab 2Scapelab, Cukrarna Gallery, 2021, interior. Photo byMiran Kambic. © Scapelab 26Scapelab. “Galerija Cukrarna.” Scapelab, June23, 2025. https://scapelab.com/si/cukrarna. Gravitivity things, it provided a home to many literary artists of the Slovenian modernistmovement in the first half of the 20th century. The original building wascharacterized by its very low yet relatively robust floors, illuminated bynumerous small square windows. During the renovation, all interior parts, floors, and walls were removed, leaving only the outer shell and a recon- structed roof of the original structure. The building is currently comprised of two constituent parts – the his- toric and the contemporary – involved in a relationship of structural and for- mal interdependence. In a way, both these elements are deformed and takenout of their usual context: the historic part has been stripped of its functionand contents, while the contemporary one does not support itself its ownfoundation, having been hung on the remnants of the past: the exterior wallsof the historic – original – building. Both elements have therefore lost touchwith their basic structural logic. Since only the perimeter wall and the gableroof remain of the historic part – it is a radically reduced shell, where theonly temporal layer left is the skeleton, the structural layer, which for that rea- son also functions as the envelope and interior layout. Everything else – theequipment and as a result the use of space – has been removed. In theauthors’ words: “The ground floor [of the existing building] is the only partof the building that receives natural light – both gallery volumes are executedas ‘white cubes’ intended to serve as art exhibition spaces with regulatedlight, air conditioning, temperature, and humidity. Two floating cuboids aredressed in perforated sheet metal… to give the new spatial interventionsa uniform exterior…” 26 The contemporary constituent is thus attached to thehistoric envelope, its entire structure literally hanging from it. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The contemporary insert is an architectural form with three clearly dis- tinguishable temporal layers: the “external” envelope (placed inside the exist- ing building), internal steel skeleton, and an added, non-transparent interiorlayer that defines the layout of gallery spaces. The paradox is in that the lay- out, is the deepest and the most hidden layer, (which is normally used to besubordinated to the skeleton and the envelope) standing out as the dominantprogrammatic, geometrical and formal factor that defines the shape andstructure of everything else. Informed by gallery use, the interior division ofspace dictates the dimensions and rhythm of the steel framework and in turnthe entire architectural mass of the contemporary insert. Clearly, this is a dia- metric shift in the hierarchy: it is not the structural framework that definesthe layout of the programme, but the programme defines the structure of theframework – in the context of a hanging form. The latter is only possiblebecause the envelope and the framework already exist, allowing the temporallayers of the new insert to function as well as present themselves in a differ- ent, inverted manner. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 3 3Scapelab, Cukrarna Gallery, 2021, interior. Photo byMiran Kambic. © Scapelab 27Contemporary art, especially through themany newly built or renovated visual art gal- leries in recent years, is entering the tourismsector with intensity and has become one ofthe most attractive tourist draws in Europe’slarger cities. The well-known Bilbao Effect isspreading relentlessly, encouraging cities toopen ever more exhibition spaces aimed atbroad audiences of visitors. In this way, thearchitecture of art galleries is increasinglyentering the realm of urban touristificationand the promotion of cultural consumption. Gravitivity The most fascinating feature of this example is the double skeleton: the exter- nal historic walls that are formally dominant, yet devoid of content, and theinternal technical skeleton of the contemporary insert, which is subordinatedto the internal logic of exhibition spaces. There’s a gaping void between thetwo systems, both physical and symbolic. Within, the void there is no con- tact, no intrinsic transition, just an unfilled distance: an empty zone that car- ries tension and unanswered questions. Described architectural construct of disarrayed temporal layers bringsus to the phenomenon of bodies without organs, something that can be readin urban space through the contemporaneous lens of touristification and cul- tural consumption27. In this case, the specific disposition of temporal layerscould be interpreted as the spatial expression of cultural consumption: arranged across a sequence of aesthetically defined, formally honed settings, the gallery spaces generate permeable experiences in severe contrast to theoriginal historic building – its rhythm, its original structure of low storeysand its mnemonic references to the broad social range of its former residents. It seems to be an attempt at inserting a flow of contemporary cultural com- modification into the rigid structure of history – one that cannot proceedwithout friction, contradictions, and formal tensions. If contemporary cultural consumption is an expression of bodies withoutorgans – uninterrupted flows of desire, sequences of aesthetic effects, serial- ized experiences – then Cukrana represents a physical effort to institutional- ize this flow within a stratified architectural shell. The result is an inharmo- nious whole with neither of the constituent parts dominating, each inscribingitself into another through tension. History becomes a stage and the gallerya play produced by the city – moment, an event, a fantastical visual experi- ence. [ 3 ] Cukrana does not reject temporal layers, it relocates them. It does notdemolish history, but transforms it into the load-bearing structure for some- thing radically different. It could be argued that it confidently subdues theload-bearing structure in order to be something other: no longer a solidstructure, but a suspended fluid, a paraphrase, and embodiment of bodieswithout organs. And therein, in this very trait, resides its essence: contempo- rary architecture is not necessarily a representation of a continuum, but canalso express a rupture – a gap between form and substance, between theskeleton and what hangs from it. Given this, a new logic of time manifests – the logic of bodies without organs, cultural appropriation and the architectur- al void. Cukrarna Gallery is an example of contemporary architecture thatdecomposes the concept of the skeleton in order to relativize its dominantmeaning. If at first sight the entire project seems to be based on the acknowl- edgment of the existential role of the architectural skeleton, a more detailed Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik28In this article, the terms classical cities, clas- sical urbanism, and classical spatial designare used to highlight those parts of the orga- nized urban environment that can be ascribedthe qualities of solid structures—that is, spaces and urban areas with a clear, recog- nizable, distinct, and long-lasting image. Examples include the classical design ofsquares, streets, parks, courtyards, and simi- lar spaces. 29The personification of urban spatial structuresas “persons” with their own desires stemsfrom the authors’ conviction that global eco- nomic forces, which drive the machinery ofcommodity consumption and tourism, createconditions through their imperative thatimpose desires and illusory needs upon peo- ple. Even though spaces themselves have nodesires or needs, their contents and imagesestablish such a powerful layer that it isuncritically transferred onto the visitors andusers of these spaces. From this it followsthat the element of desire and need can alsobe attributed to spaces, even if they lacka biological foundation. Gravitivity analysis of its conflicting role in the building’s structure demonstrates that farless rigid temporal layers play a superior role. Homelessness and Consumerism: The City as a Symbiosis ofStructures and Bodies Without Organs The following illustrates the concepts used herein to describe exposed post- structural social relations and the division of architectural form into dynamicsystems of temporal layers. The interest, concerning the overall argument, iswhether contemporary urban phenomena such as homelessness and con- sumerism can be described applying the same terms as those used for a singlebuilding, like in the previous case. A modern city appears as a complex com- position of two intertwined systems: solid structures and bodies withoutorgans, referring to Deleuze’s and Guattari’s terminology. These two systemsare not in conflict, they cohabitate in constant friction, interaction, and with- in the transformation of urban space. We typically think of cities it as ordered, clearly organized structuresdefined by the rules of classical urbanism28, i.e. the separation of public, semi-public and private spaces, formal rules of design and operation, com- munity utilities, traffic regulations, and architectural norms. Such solidstructures establish order, boundaries, places, territories, stability, and pre- dictability. On the other hand, there are bodies without organs emergingacross urban space – elusive, fluid and equivocal systems that evade stableorganization and are constantly transforming – becoming – something anew. Bodies without organs are spatial systems without a permanent form orfinal representational image, but with an eternal desire29 to be somethingdifferent: e.g. shopping malls, city cores redeveloped for tourists, shared traf- fic spaces where various users interact without pre-defined relationships. Similarly, amusement parks and hyper-productive urban advertising land- scapes embody a continuum of desires, intensities, flows and transitionswhere no solid forms exist; rather, they represent a series of continuous shiftsand changes. Bodies without organs have no beginning and no end; they min- gle and intertwine – commercial flows intersects with tourist flows, informa- tion flow with entertainment, the visual with the material. A city of con- sumption is nothing like our normative perception of a city formed bystreets, squares and parks. It is an endless, intertwining landscape within theotherwise solidly constructed world. Even though solid structures and bodies without organs embody differentspatial logics, they cohabitate within cities. Bodies without organs increasing- ly interfere with the classical structure of the urban fabric – perforating andstretching it, redirecting its perception. Urban space thus increasingly loses Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik30Except that layers in shopping malls derivefrom the world of “perfection” whereas layersof homeless abodes accumulate and emergewhere centres “change clothes” and thus pro- duce always new “construction” materials. Gravitivity its existential qualities, morphing into a stage for making desires come true. It is no longer an area of existence, but is transformed into an event platformfor instant experiences and consumption – a field of intensities. In the logic of bodies without organs homelessness is situated as its dop- pelganger. Seemingly banished from the flows of consumption, homelessnessnot only cohabits with them, but even reaps their benefits. The more smooth- ly the supply and demand machine runs, the more obsolete materials are gen- erated. And homelessness uses them for its own benefit. The presence of thehomeless in urban space does not function like an illogical foreign body, butas an integral (other) part of the consumption landscape that participates inan equally relevant system of desires, demands, and needs. Like consumers, the homeless take part in the cycle of urban intensification. Consumersembody what the system of infinite production of goods desires, and thehomeless what this same system spurns – as well as expels at the end of thelinear cycle of consumption. Homeless shelters and shopping malls combinea common feature, where neither of their users builds a lasting, nurturingand meaningful relationship with the urban space, which in turn makes shap- ing one’s personal (and urban) identity impossible. The logic of bodies with- out organs simultaneously expels them from space and places them insidea shearing continuum of spatial shallowness. The typical spatial phenomena of these two constructed spaces, theshopping mall and homeless shelters, can be thus analysed in a similar fash- ion. In terms of temporal layers, they represent formal extremes of the samephenomenon. A shopping mall is outwardly represented by a rapidly chang- ing envelope that adapts to trend, taste and commercial expectations – whichin turn constantly regenerates through the act of consumption. While underthe glossy façade hides the utilitarian skeleton – a structural layer that istechnical, invisible, and has no aesthetic aspirations. Layouts are made up ofcheap, replaceable materials that change rapidly, but even not as rapidly asequipment, which is in fact replaced every season. Similarly, layering inhomeless shelters is defined by sheer need, and takes shape through thematerials at hand and improvisation. The envelope, a fragile protective struc- ture made up of plastic, textile or in the form of a tent, is virtually instanta- neously erected, ephemeral, and subject to wear and theft, which translates toa dynamic exchange.30 It is difficult to speak of actual layouts in such shel- ters, even though it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between theirenvelopes and layouts, which seem to converge in peculiar ways. Makeshiftshelters for the homeless are often nothing more than unicellular formationsand are often erected without a skeleton, neither technical nor symbolic. Rather than setting up a skeleton as something of their own, the homelessmerely appropriate already habitable space: bridges, overhangs, fences, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik31The concept of gravitivity, key topic of thispaper, defines the minimum condition forunderstanding architecture’s embeddednessin time. It enables us to consider architectureas a specific practice capable of enduring inthe contemporary world. This central thesiswill be illustrated with selected examples ofarchitecture to show how gravitivity allowsarchitecture to transcend its immediate useand to operate independently of the estab- lished relationship between formand function. Gravitivity benches, alcoves – appropriating those parts of the city which act as a part ofits indispensable infrastructure. We can therefore conclude that for both, theshopping mall and itinerant homeless abodes, the outermost and innermosttemporal layers play a much more important functional and meaningful rolethan the central layer of the skeleton, which is relegated to the backgroundand obscured in the first case, or adopted and improvised in the second. Bothforms therefore point to the same logic of an urban body without organs: theovergrowing and obscuring of solid structures, their vacating, morphing intocontinuously new envelopes. It is important to understand that this is not a case of oppositionbetween order and chaos, between a classical city and its anomalies, but oftwo sides of the same process. The city decomposes and regenerates throughthe ongoing relationship between structures and bodies without organs. Every museum exhibition, every seasonal sale at a shopping mall, every germof a cardboard shelter under the bridge is an expression of the same flows ofdesires and intensities that transform urban space. To understand bodieswithout organs in a city means to understand how temporal layers interactand formalize in a manner foreign to them, and how desire, not existence, shapes a space: be it in a seemingly organised shop or an improvised shelter, in glossy but “phony” centres or derelict outskirts. Through the description of the architecture of the Cukrarna Gallery andthe principles by which homelessness is capable of re-appropriating the builtfabric of public space, we have pointed to two instances where the seeminglystraightforward and technically coherent hierarchy of Brand’s temporal layersbecomes inverted and collapses into self-contradiction. In this inversion, thematerialization of space opens itself to bodies without organs. These bodiesclaim the space, interlacing it into a supple, indeterminate form. The nextexample however distances one from the broader urban context to the scaleof an architectural object to demonstrate how the logic of displacement, lay- ers, and instability represents itself in a complex architectural form. Focusingon spatial experiences that are no longer linear, but shaped through an inter- play of various temporal and spatial flows. Kunsthal: Beyond Temporal Layers Kunsthal, by Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, is an example of an architecturalobject that is radicalized by questioning the relationship between time, space, and the (un)predictability of experience. In the context of our rapidly chang- ing world, the building’s specific temporality31 – its distinctive mode of exist- ing, unfolding, and being experienced in time, which allows it to persist andoperate beyond immediate function – is strangely manifold. Following Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 4 4Rem Koolhaas, Kunsthal, 1992, floor plan. © OMA 32Cynthia Davidson, “Koolhaas and the Kun- sthal: History Lesions,” ANY, no. 19/20(1997): 39. Gravitivity Deleuze’s and Guattari’s argument that contemporary social life is no longerstructured through stable forms, but through networked, non-linear connec- tions of desire, flow and movement, Kunsthal does not appear as a coherent, completed architectural whole, but via a tension between differing temporaland spatial layers. This intersectional tension can be explained based on thethree aspects of the building’s design. First, its design negates the spatial logic of temporal layers. This is indi- cated by the exterior, allowing for a provisional explanation of the building’senvelope and skeleton: the columns on the south façade are of different sizesand shapes. The striking horizontal steel girder on the top of the buildingdoes not have a load-bearing function. The stone cladding on the upper floorof the north façade is nearly flush with the glazing on the ground floor, which has no visible structural support, similar to many other elements inthe interior. The technology, layout and equipment appear as a kind of simul- taneous expression of elements, stacking of several layers one on top of theother so that they are discernible only in their singularity. It is as if none ofthe elements had a function within the whole of the architectural design. [ 4 ] Even the relativity of place can be explained in these terms: due to thearchitectural principles of the Kunsthal, the concept of site, which is usuallyfixed and unambiguous, becomes relative to and subject to perception, expe- rience, and time. Once inside, visitors lose a sense of space and time, and thebuilding, as a result, appears anti-tectonic. Koolhaas’s keen interest in the tec- tonic nevertheless comes through in the architect’s deliberate use of certainelements in unexpected ways. To elaborate, Kunsthal is designed to challengeour usual perception of a museum building. The following passage says asmuch: “Seeing each elevation is essential to knowing the building and to see- ing it in relation to Koolhaas’s view of time. This no longer seems like a staticbox but rather a series of pictures that play back in the mind. I am remindedof Jean-Luc Godard’s filmic jump cut, where time between frames vanishes, no longer providing a continuous narrative sequence and momentarily dislo- cating the viewer with new visual information.” 32 Summarily, the object setsup diverse and unpredictable scenarios and with them operating conditionsin the manner of bodies without organs. It is a non-hierarchical space: movingaround the space, visitors lose their sense of direction and awareness of theirspecific location, which in the context of temporal layers is called the placelayer. Secondly, Kunsthal materializes the dynamic relationship between theobject’s architectural form and programmatic indeterminacy. The buildingappears as a deliberate attempt at deconstructing a space in which it is impos- sible to recognize clear, idealized forms. In place of a harmonious, balancedcomposition we see spatial deformations revealing before us – broken lines, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 5 5Rem Koolhaas, Kunsthal, 1992, floor plan. Photo byDelfino Sisto Legnani and Marco Cappelletti. © OMA 33Object-form refers to the building as a stand- alone, visible entity, perceived mainly throughits shape or figure. It emphasizes visual formrather than the spatial experience or interac- tion of the user. 34Tibor Pataky, OMA’s Kunsthal in Rotterdam: Rem Koolhaas and the New Europe (Zurich: Park Books, 2023), 118–119. Gravitivity staggering, unusual cross-sections and unexpected passages, ascents anddescents that consciously undermine established architectural principles. Theobject’s forms derive not from proportions, but from deliberately deformedentities that create the sense of spatial uncertainty of bodies without organs. Rather than a single whole, the building appears as an open, fragmentedspace that can only be comprehended through movement. In this sense, Kun- sthal is in fact a result of movement itself. [ 5 ] Through the third aspect – the creation of conditions – the observersenses Kunsthal not merely as an “object-form”33, but as a series of spatialeffects that the space is capable of (not) foreseeing. The building’s infrastruc- ture functions as the vessel of experience of the space. To some degree, Kool- haas himself said as much in his essay Field Trip: “Its impact was entirelyindependent of its appearance. […] I would never again believe in form asthe primary vessel of meaning.” 34 The primary idea of the thesis that Kunsthal so radically challenges – the fundamental relationship between form and function, i.e. their assumedindependence that the building obscures, inverts, or even cancels. Ratherthan an unchanging answer to a certain use, the building is designed as anarchitectural condition for the possibility of the emergence of various spatialscenarios that have not yet been written. And this is exactly what it is – a space of multiple scenarios: a diversity of spatial relations, possibilities, andaccumulation of stories. The architecture offers visitors the idea of free use, which makes way for a different temporality and presence from what wasexpected. This openness, unpredictability, and decentering of meaning opensto the concept of gravitivity. With its conscious distance towards fixed mean- ings and deliberate deconstructing of the architectural form, Koolhaas’sdesign establishes architecture as a practice that defies rapid change and sim- ple programmatic solutions. Part IIGravitivity Gravitivity is a component of a built space through which space is re-ground- ed and embedded in time. It is a local temporal characteristic of a space, which separates it from those objects and beings that move freely around it, and from the matter that is subject to rapid change, decomposition, ormetabolism. The gravitivity of a space unquestionably stems from its need towithstand, by means of a sound technical and material design, the forces ofgravity and other loads associated with a space. Gravity is a universal forcethat surrounds the Earth, defining the basic physical behaviours of all bodiesin nearly identical quantity and direction. Without gravity, the planet as an Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik35See Kenneth Frampton, Studies in TectonicCulture: The Poetics of Construction in Nine- teenth and Twentieth Century Architecture( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996). 36See Ákos Moravánszky in Mario Rinke (ed.), The Bones of Architecture: Structure andDesign Practices (Zürich: Triest Verlag, 2019), 27. Gravitivity accumulation and condensation of matter would not form and as a result, thephenomena such as the diversity of matter, life, and in turn sensory experi- ence within a space would never develop and take shape. Gravity not onlydefines the behaviour of all matter on the planet, but enables its existence. Gravity is an invisible, but omnipresent force that shapes the physical, biolog- ical, and chemical conditions for life on Earth. Without it, the planet wouldnot be able to contain the atmosphere or hold water, there would be no dayand night, plants would not grow upwards, and humans would not even becapable of walking. Gravity is one of the key foundations for a stable bios- phere – the formation and existence of matter, life, and space as we knowdepend on it. Although gravity defines the basic physical conditions for key atmos- pheric, hydrological, and biological processes on the planet, its all-encom- passing presence is so ubiquitous that it is no longer seen as something spe- cial or different – we have come to take it for granted as somethingomnipresent and universal. Its universality is comparable with the heart’sbeat, the contraction and expansion of the lungs, and evaporation of sweat onthe skin. Its unquestionable physical constancy thus pushed to the back- ground of our actions, turning into a part of our subconscious routines. Inwhat way then does the fact that a built space must comply with the laws ofgravity shape its significance for humans living in space and time? To grasp the term gravitivity, it is important to differentiate it from twowell-established and meaningfully related concepts of tectonics35 and anato- my of space36. Kenneth Frampton explains tectonics through its etymologicalroots, i.e. as the expression of construction of spatial structures composed ofseveral smaller carpentry elements integrated together in an architecturalway. Architectural way derives from the manner in which materials areworked, i.e. technique, as well as from the need for solid and enduring – thususeful – structures. Interestingly, he interprets the concept in very broadterms, recognizing the importance of assemblage and joints in the broadersense of the word. For him, tectonics means that trait of architecture whichin its essence assembles and joins spaces and contents rather than just matter. His understanding of tectonics was influenced by theoretical concepts of KarlOtfried Müller, Karl Böttlicher and Gottfried Semper. Akos Moravánsky uses the concept of anatomy of space to focus on thesimilarities between built structures and living beings, recognising in both a(building or living) body made up of a skeleton and muscles, solid and softstructures, i.e. the supporting and supported systems. His interpretation ofsimilarities derives from key authors who laid the foundations of modernistunderstanding of architecture: Gottfried Semper, Viollet- le-Duc and HendrikPetrus Berlage. Frampton’s tectonic is therefore something capable of cons- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 6 6Edvard Ravnikar, Residential and commercialcomplex Ferantov vrt, 1964-1975, section. © Museum of Architecture and Design, Ljubljana 37Changes in Earth's gravity are so minute thatliving beings cannot perceive their impact. Gravity changes because of the planet’s grad- ual rotational deceleration, ongoing tectonicchanges from redistribution of geologicalmasses as well as redistribution of water indifferent states due to climate change. 38Tactility in architecture is understood in termsof architecture’s material nature throughwhich it engages the sense of touch, enhanc- ing the sensory experience beyond sight andsound. We find that a direct contact ofa human body with the material that providesgravitivity to a building evokes authenticexperiences of mass, matter and force thattranscend the rational, physical understand- ing of tension and loads imposed on buildingsby gravity. 39Sonja Ifko, Brina Britovšek, Andraž Keršic, Miha Rijavec, Polona Šušteric and TatjanaAdamic, Ferantov vrt: sustainable approachesfor protection of post-war architecture of 20thcentury, trans. Mojca Vilfan (Ljubljana: Fakul- teta za arhitekturo, 2018). 40Roman Emona was built on the site of today’sLjubljana as a military encampment and by 14AD evolved into an urban settlement with live- ly trade. It was a part of the Roman provinceof Upper Pannonia (later Noricum or Italy, depending on the era) and had the status ofa colony, which means that its inhabitantsincluded retired Roman soldiers with full citi- zen rights. 41See “Kazuo Shinohara: Casas/Houses”, 2G, no. 58/59 (Barcelona: Editorial GG, 2011). Gravitivity tructing (through the process of joining smaller parts into a whole) itsintegrity, coherence, and identity, while preserving the awareness of theprocess, material, and the traces of human craftsmanship. Moravánski'sanatomy, on the other hand, is a system that is functionally and structurallyseparated from other parts of the building, defying gravity and allowing thebuilding its necessary load-bearing capacity. Both authors recognize the cul- tural elements of these characteristics of architecture, which through cen- turies of development transform into artistic, stylistic, and meaningful char- acteristics of construction. On the one hand, gravitivity is the physis of the space that has to do withits tectonics and anatomy, but owing to its universality, matter- of-factnessand immateriality it is also a metaphor – a covertly veiled thought, i.e. a men- tal transfer of a genuine ontological meaning of space. Not only somethingthat is, something measurable and analytically explicable (e.g. by using math- ematical tools of static analysis), gravitivity is also something that only repre- sents and metaphysically interprets the territorial and temporal indepen- dence, i.e. expulsion of architectural space from the concrete here and now. As a physical perception of gravity, gravitivity is immediately compre- hensible, material, and empirical, but at the same time it is also omnipresentand unaffected by time37, possessing the properties of the universal, all- encompassing, and eternal. It is an unmediated element proper to a body andas such is tactile. 38 It is an element that is never purely conceptual or suchthat it would demand a mental interpretation of the perceived, conversely, itis sensory, directly biological and therefore ontic (in the narrow sense), it isof this world, and thus material. An example of such gravitivity at work is theresidential- commercial complex of Ljubljana’s Ferant Garden (1975)39designed in 1975 by the Slovene architect Edvard Ravnikar. The building isconstructed directly over the archaeological remnants of the Roman settle- ment Emona, erected between 14 BC and 14 AD.40 With Y-shaped concretecolumns that dominate the space of the half-buried basement gallery, thearchitect upheld the programme's extensive structural frame on six pointswhere the building, its mass and its essence barely touches the ground. Bymeans of this gesture, he physically and mentally connected the horizontalspace of the more than 1000 m˛ gallery (which also receives daylight throughthe openings on the two longitudinal sides) with the public space outsidewithout having to add any additional supporting walls. [ 6 ] The horizontalopenness, and the gallery’s attachment to its surroundings evoke a feeling ofan uninterrupted flow of the space, whereas the unadorned materiality of theconcrete columns pierces through the space as a contrast, mass, pure physis. [ 7 ] A very similar approach to spatial design was used in the design of thehouse in Uehara (1976) by Japanese architect Kazuo Shinohare. 41 Running in Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 7 7Edvard Ravnikar, South Basement Gallery, 1964- 1975, interior. Photo by Miran Kambic. © studioabiro Gravitivity two perpendicular directions, V-columns “roughly” cut through the centralliving quarters of the home, like independent bodies or housemates. [ 8 ][ 9 ] Like in the case with Ravnikar’s gallery, the technical solution, the logicof load bearing, and even understanding of the object’s syntax of tectonicsmatter far less than the “raw” immediacy of these structural elements, whichintroduce an exceptionally primal, direct, and haptic presence of weight andsubstance into the otherwise homely family house. In both of the describedcases, gravitivity does not manifest itself through the representation of archi- tectural syntax or the specificity of materiality, but through the sheer pres- ence of matter, which enters space on equal terms with human form, pres- ence, and relentlessness. Gravitivity cannot be described in an analyticalmanner; it is both sublime and real. The other important characteristic of gravitivity is its non-territoriality, timelessness and in turn detachment from the present, and consequentlyfrom the context of concrete time and space. Architecturally, this is manifest- ed through a design of a building’s skeleton or load-bearing system that doesnot specify an explicit method of construction or composition, nor does itprescribe its exact material and substance. It has no desire to be concrete, precise in the manner of structure and composition, precise in the choice ofmaterial and its substance, but deliberately evades such precision – wishinginstead not to be understood as something expressly concrete, fleeting, andreplaceable. It shuns any straightforward, legible interpretation of time, bothin terms of its formation and its disintegration. Proffering the question of the temporal dimension of a building’s struc- tural framework, the concept of gravitivity is closely related to temporal lay- ers. According to Brand, Eberle and Duffy, the part that ensures its solidity, structural support and in turn the basic spatial geometry is assumed to bemore, or even the most long-lived. Its longevity and endurance, as a rule longer than in any other layer thatmakes up the building envelope, ensures hierarchical co-dependence of assem- bly and disassembly, because the structural skeleton is in fact the supportingsystem to which all other subordinated elements attach in one way or anoth- er. If the timescales of the structural skeleton were shorter than those of otherlayers, the supported parts would require changing in parallel with any inter- vention into the supporting parts. Hierarchical interdependence translates totemporal interdependence, demonstrating the necessity of designing thestructural framework to last. The system of temporal layers is therefore sub- ject not only to the principles of temporal dynamics and adaptability of dif- ferent levels of a building’s use and adaptation, but also to the hierarchicalinterdependence of a building’s component parts or layers, which is imma- nent to this system. According to Brand, Eberle and Duffy, a sound building Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 8 9 8Kazuo Shinohara, House in Uehara, 1976, interior. Photo by Hiroshi Ueda. 9Kazuo Shinohara, House in Uehara, 1976, interior. Photo by Hiroshi Ueda. 42The concept of suppressed growth, originat- ing in botany, denotes the phenomenon inwhich a plant, due to surrounding obstacles, does not develop evenly or to its full potential. Instead, its growth framework – the stem – adapts and yields to the surrounding obstruc- tions. The growth becomes deformed and failsto display the plant’s expected for- mal structure. Gravitivity design that pays attention to the internal hierarchy of layers ensures its sus- tainability, longevity, and capacity of adaptation to unexpected changes anduses that come with unpredictable future. In architecture, the structural skele- ton plays the leading role, hierarchically governing all other layers but theplace (which remains independent). The skeleton’s structure directly and indi- rectly determines the material and spatial elements of architectural space. Contemporary works of architecture respond to the relationshipbetween gravitivity of a space and the dominance of the structural skeleton indifferent ways. Most contemporary architectural production does not pay anynoteworthy attention to the structural skeleton, which is treated as a utilitari- an, pragmatic, and technically correctly set system that merely serves its pur- pose for a concrete space and time in which it was created. This means thatits “dominance” is neither specifically underlined and presented, nor does itreveal its longevity or even timelessness. Its place in the architecture of bodieswithout organs is in the background, where it does not show off its seniorityand hierarchical superiority. In order to facilitate constant transformationand metabolization of other temporal layers, the structural skeleton lingers atthe level of suppressed growth42 – like a skeleton that only loosely fits withthe organs clinging on to it. With its invasive dynamics, the life of bodieswithout organs gradually comes to demand that the structural skeleton adaptsto it as well. As a result, the latter gradually becomes amputated, broken, andultimately barely recognizable. To explain this further, the system of temporal layers requires architec- ture to ensure the layers maintain their hierarchical interdependence, in linewith the dynamics of their timescales. Most buildings, however, are notdesigned with this principle in mind; what’s more, the expected scope anddynamics of change in the use of a space also calls for spatial interventions( e.g. into structural elements and the façade envelope to accommodate thecurrent needs of the building’s programme) that often outrun the envisagedtimescales of temporal layers. This is why through increasingly destructiveand unstructured transformations, where the layers no longer alternateaccording to an organized principle, the complexity and aggressiveness of thespace of bodies without organs dissolves and rubs out their legibilityand identity. Gravitivity is resistance against this process. A building designed to pur- posefully reinterpret the principles of gravitivity manifests the role of thestructural skeleton in several ways. To begin with, its form and presence con- sistently defy the processes of constant transformation of desiring machines. The physis of the skeleton transcends the exclusively utilitarian role of thestructure. What’s more, it even transcends the limitations of the temporal lay- er, because the skeleton layer might come with the functions of the envelope Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik Gravitivity or technology layers. It is visible, perceived, present, and excessively defining. As follows from the above, it is contradictory to the principle of temporal lay- ers, because it imposes on the layers with more intense dynamics and author- ity. It is irrational and therefore subversive; it compromises the rationality ofthe structure of a space, but only in order to protect its being. More than theskeleton of a mammal it resembles the shell of a vertebrate. It is rigid, crude, and archaic, but only to maintain its presence and longevity. As such, it helpsarchitecture to stay regrounded and embedded in time, despite the potency ofdesiring machines. So that it can exist in its own, i.e. material, yet timelessmanner. Gravitivity represents itself through the raw materiality of the struc- ture, its generic regularity and its lyrical autonomy, through the capacity ofits own individuality that transcends the question of the right or wrong pro- gramme. Through universality of its content on the one hand, and individu- ality of its form on the other. The final part of the paper presents two case studies of architectures atdifferent spatial scales, both of them demonstrating how the principles ofgravitivity find their expression in space, and how they allow architecture tomaintain its autonomy and identity in increasingly precarious times of ourmodern world. DAAR: Refugee Camps and Articulation of Time The first example illustrating the principles of gravitivity focuses on the ten- sion between temporary, informal abodes (similar to those discussed abovefor the homeless) and permanent built structures. Refugee camps are anexpression of the spatial challenges that come with increasingly uncertain liv- ing circumstances. They are a specific form of spatial adaptation to crisis sit- uations, where the need for safety and responsiveness often falls victim tolimited time and resources. Our basic argument, namely that gravitivityallows us to understand architecture as a practice capable of persevering inthe world, is especially relevant in the case of refugee camps. The point of departure is that these spaces, which in the context of con- temporary social instability represent an extreme spatial situation, emerge asa response to different socio-political crises and manifest themselves asexamples of forced temporary housing and improvisation. They are interest- ing because they reveal the gaps in our understanding of architecture as a sta- ble, permanent, and planned activity. They invite one to reflect on relation- ships between space, time, and structure. Whereas in the previous chapterswe discussed architecture as an activity that articulates certain order and sta- bility, refugee camps in general represent the exact opposite. They come notfrom the structure, but from the mode of operation of bodies without organs. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 10 11 12 10Dheisheh refugee camp, 1952. © UNRWA archive 11Dheisheh refugee camp, 1959. © UNRWA archive 12Dheisheh refugee camp, 2011. © DAAR 43DAAR, a collective of architects and a resi- dency programme, was co-founded in 2007 bySandi Hilal and Alessadro Petti in Beit Sahour(West Bank, Palestine). Their research, archi- tectural and artistic practice focuses on thedecolonisation of space. 44Located in Betlehem in the West Bank (Pales- tine), Dheisheh was established 1949 asa temporary tent camp. 45The Concrete Tent was set up in differentrefugee camps, including Dheisheh, Abu Dabi, Rabat, and Sharjah, which goes to show theversatility and adaptability of thisr spatialintervention in various socio-political con- texts. See Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, andEyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution( Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013). Gravitivity Working at the intersection of architecture, art, and politics, the DAAR(Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency) collective has been researchingthese “unpromising”, uncertain spaces for more than a decade, investigatingand intervening in the context of Palestinian refugee camps.43 The refugee camp Dheisheh will serve as an example of their spatialpractice44, showing how over decades an originally disorganised structurecan evolve into a persevering, functional and community- shaped urbanstructure. Dheisheh demonstrates the capacity of a space to solidify even inthe absence of specific planning. More specifically: it reveals a form of gravi- tivity that does not derive from initial stability, but from everyday use, improvisation, and group action through time. How? Since 1949, the camp area has evolved into a “solid” urban structurewith all basic infrastructure: water, electricity and a sewage network. In placeof tents, its inhabitants built concrete objects and paved the streets. Chaotic, segmented, and devoid of any organised guidance, the camp’s architecturalstructure is a result of decades of an improvised, often informal constructionprocess, through which people took the initiative to adapt spaces to meettheir daily needs. This seemingly chaotic situation, however, gradually comesto shape a new kind of order – an unplanned, but nevertheless establishedspatial logic that evolves from a collective construction practice and its tem- poral layers. This can be read as a transition from an “unsolid” to a “solid” structure, which is based on spatial perseverance. [ 10 ] DAAR’s practice serves as a good example because of their unique wayof articulating the socio-political circumstances of our day. Their spatialresearch does not investigate a refugee camp as a temporary and thereforeinsignificant space, but as a spatial reality present here and now. DAAR seerefugee camps not as merely utilitarian structures, but as potential architec- tural spaces, which is evident in their Concrete Tent projects45, spatial inter- ventions through which DAAR explores and formalizes the contradictionbetween the temporary and the permanent. The project presents a tent- shaped concrete structure that symbolically embodies the contrasts betweenmovable and immovable, temporary and permanent – as a paradox of perma- nent temporariness. The tent therefore embodies the reverse process of transi- tion, from a non-solid to solid structure, where gravitivity plays its role inde- pendently of the course or stage of the construction process. The materialpermanence of the concrete structure thus allows the tent to become a per- manent vessel of memories and of the community identity of its residents. [ 11 ][ 12 ] A broader conclusion that offers itself is that even in the most extremeconditions, architecture has the potential to harness gravitivity in order toarticulate time, structure, and regrounding. The built refugee city of Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 13 14 13studio abiro, Poslovna stavba DARS, 2024, floorplan. © studio abiro 14studio abiro, Poslovna stavba DARS, 2024, interior. Photo by Miran Kambic. © studio abiro Gravitivity Dheisheh and Concrete Tent projects are important in that they demonstratethe necessity of architecture’s presence in any given social context. As such, architecture has the capacity to introduce order to the world, order thatunderpins human habitation. DARS Office Building: Manifestation of Gravitivity In many examples of contemporary architecture, the temporal layers manifestthemselves through a multi- layered construction, where the structural ele- ments usually stay hidden, covered from the outside by the envelope layer andby the layout layer from the inside. In the case of DARS office building, a reversed logic is at play: not only is the temporal layer of the skeletonexposed, it also assumes a distinctly prominent, even dominant role. Takingon much of the substance of the envelope layer, the skeleton becomes theexternal face of the building. The building’s load-bearing structure is dividedinto two levels: the interior of the building rests on four strong monolith con- crete stairways, while the peripheral part carries a steel frame pushed to theouter side of the thermal envelope and shaped as a deep, yet slender honey- comb. Clearly defining spatial relationships, the internal part of the structureis rigid and final, while the outer protrudes outwards from the envelopeplane, evading any attempt at a predetermined division of space or articula- tion of the façade envelope. It is a universal building skeleton defined by thesteady rhythm of 250-cm-long intervals, but independent of the building’sinternal structure. Materialised on the exterior layer of the building, thestructure with its explicit presence is more than a load-bearing core, butserves in the first place to represent the building’s meaning. Taking on the jobof the envelope, it does not perform it in the regular way, i.e. through the pre- disposition of windows, vertical articulations, or rhythmical articulation ofthe content, but in an open, grid-like, nearly decomposed manner. [ 13 ] All other temporal layers are more or less subordinated to the skeleton, but still maintain their dynamics, timescales, and even independence. Thefaçade envelope as such is no longer there; what remains is a continuous ther- mal coat, interrupted only by regularly spaced windows for natural ventila- tion. The technological layers, installations, HVAC and lighting systems areinserted into the space as secondary elements that operate horizontally withtheir own logic of distribution and operation, but are vertically (cable andconnection routing- wise) subordinated to the skeleton. With the skeletonremoved from content- dedicated parts of the building (those that serve thecompany’s activities), the layouts (partition walls between rooms) enjoy fullfreedom, never obstructed by the building’s load-bearing elements. This gen- erates tension between two worlds: the stable and finite one, and the resett- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik 15 16 15studio abiro, Poslovna stavba DARS, 2024. Photoby Miran Kambic. © studio abiro 16studio abiro, Poslovna stavba DARS, 2024. Photoby Miran Kambic. © studio abiro Gravitivity ling world, which is constantly subject to change. The framework is clear, sta- ble, static, whereas the use of the building remains open, dynamic, potential. This tension is underlined and clearly expressed, yet in essence non-con- frontational. [ 14 ] The building itself is in no way a body without organs. Its form is thereand it does not disintegrate into flows. Quite the opposite – it puts in placea clear and solid structure. Nevertheless, it accepts dynamic, changeable sys- tems – economic, functional, social – that we understand as a part of bodieswithout organs of the contemporary urban and economic social apparatus. These bodies may operate inside the building, but their supremacy is inter- cepted: they are neither superior to the structure, nor do they break down theskeleton or take on a form. The building does not refuse them, but it does notgive them power either. There is a subtle relationship somewhere betweenhospitality and restrain, openness and resistance. [ 15 ] Gravitivity is the key concept to come out and express itself in the two- fold relationship between a solid structure and bodies without organs. Inside, it is manifested as a monolithic presence: unarticulated concrete towersdevoid of human scale, corporeal to the point of being brutal. They evokea sense of mass and presence. They are immediate, tactile, corporeal – not tobe observed, but felt. The external manifestation of gravitivity, on the otherhand, is abstract: the geometrical grid of the framework that is broken downto the human scale – office cells, individual functions – and at the same timecompletely alienated, non-tactile, digital. It functions as a conceptual scheme– technical, repeatable, and stripped of any local specifics. The embodimentof the concept of gravitivity as defined above is manifested in a distinctlyarchitectural, articulated manner. Assuming, subverting, and setting back thelogic of temporal layers without compromising their original role, gravitivityreveals itself through the embodiment of the skeleton and subsists as the fun- damental identity of the space. The space is thus regrounded, but withoutbeing caught in a concrete place. For people working in and thinking aboutthis space, regrounding appears as the possibility to defy life’s uncertainties. For us, living at a time of constant changes in business dynamics, temporaryorganisational structures, and fluid spatial arrangements, the regrounding ofgravitivity means regaining and maintaining our capacity to perceive stateand duration. With its longevity, its unrelenting presence, and manifold role in thesystem of temporal layers, the skeleton becomes the vessel of gravitivity. It car- ries an allegorical reflection of resilience against dissolution, incorporeality, dispersion into bodies without organs. [ 16 ] Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik Gravitivity Gravitivity as a Condition of Perseverance The paper offers a reflection on the connection between architecture andsocial structures and proposes a definition of the new concept of gravitivityso as to define this connection. Based on the analysis of different views onthe layering of the architectural envelope of a building, which we call “tem- poral layers”, we wanted to bring to light various attempts at defining therelationships between contemporary social conditions and architecture. Tem- poral layers served to define architecture as a practice with its own temporali- ty, which is different from the temporality of the rapidly changing contempo- rary society. The examples offered in Part I corroborate that, each revealingin its own way the concurrent action of contemporary architecture at two lev- els: firstly in terms of tension between solid structures and bodies withoutorgans, and secondly at the level of temporal layers of the architectur- al envelope. Part II develops the concept of gravitivity to help us understand whyand how architecture becomes embedded in time. We illustrated our thesisthat gravitivity allows us to think architecture as a specific practice capable ofpersevering in the contemporary world with two topical examples at differentscales: a refugee camp and an office building. We demonstrated that bothdraw a clear line between the temporality of the contemporary socio-politicalcontext and the temporality established in the world by architecture. The twoexamples may be conflicting, but it is in this conflict that the presence ofgravitivity reveals itself. It represents the potential that transcends social cir- cumstances and establishes itself as a link between temporal layers of a space: place, envelope, skeleton, technology, layout, and equipment. Gravitivity estab- lishes itself as that which allows architecture to operate regardless of expecta- tions and current uses of a space. It allows architecture to persevere – notonly as solid changelessness, but by being able to resist decay. As such, gravi- tivity can be understood as a tool that re-examines established architecturalconventions and transcends them through its own logic of perseverance – transcendence. Through the explanation of the theoretical framework of temporal lay- ers, as well as the analysis of several architectural works, we have highlightedthose characteristics of building’s form that grant architecture – governed bythe expectations and needs of contemporary post-structural society – thecapacity and strength to sustain timelessness and embeddedness in space. The definition of gravitivity as we have developed it, constitutes the mini- mum condition for understanding architecture’s embeddedness in time. Itenables architecture to transcend the inherent fragility of local culture andcontext, as illustrated by selected examples, which demonstrate how Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik Gravitivity gravitivity allows architecture to operate independently of the establishedrelationship between form and function and to extend its relevance beyondimmediate use. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik Gravitivity Bibliography Adamic, Tatjana. “Ljubljana – soseska Ferantov vrt.” Varstvo spomenikov, no. 54 (2020): 133–36. Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. New York: Penguin Books, 1994. “Concrete Tent, Dheisheh (2015).” Decolonizing Architecture Art Reasearch. July 2, 2025. https://www.decolonizing.ps/site/concrete-tent/. Davidson, Cynthia. “Koolhaas and the Kunsthal: History Lesions.” ANY, no. 19/20 (1997): 39. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by RobertHurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Deleuze, Gilles. “Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari on Anti-Oedipus.” In Negotiations, 1972–1990, translated by Martin Joughin, xx–xx. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. Duffy, Frank. Measuring Building Performance. London: Facilities, 1990. Eberle, Dietmar. baumschlager eberle: 200 100 50 20 10. Vienna: TU Wien, 2015. Frampton, Kenneth. Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and TwentiethCentury Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. Guattari, Félix. “Balance-Sheet for ‘Desiring-Machines.’” In Chaosophy: Texts and Interviews 1972–1977, edited by Sylvčre Lotringer, translated by David L. Sweet, Jarred Becker, and Taylor Adkins, 90-115. NewYork: Semiotext(e), 2009. Ifko, Sonja, Brina Britovšek, Andraž Keršic, Miha Rijavec, Polona Šušteric in Tatjana Adamic. Ferantovvrt: sustainable approaches for protection of post-war architecture of 20th century. Translated by MojcaVilfan. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za arhitekturo, 2018 “Kazuo Shinohara: Casas/Houses.” 2G, no. 58/59 (Barcelona: Editorial GG, 2011). Krmelj, Vesna. Cukrarna. Umetnine v žepu 3. Ljubljana: Umetnostnozgodovinski inštitut FrancetaSteleta, ZRC SAZU, 2010. Moravánszky, Ákos, and Mario Rinke, ed. The Bones of Architecture: Structure and Design Practices. Zürich: Triest Verlag, 2019. Pataky, Tibor. OMA’s Kunsthal in Rotterdam: Rem Koolhaas and the New Europe. Zurich: Park Books, 2023. Petti, Alessandro, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman. Architecture after Revolution. Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013. Pushkar, Svetlana. “Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Various Building Lifetime Shearing Layers: Site, structure, skin, services, space, and stuff.” Journal of Green Building 10, no. 2 (2015): 198–214. Scapelab. “Galerija Cukrarna.” Scapelab. June 23, 2025. https://scapelab.com/si/cukrarna. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramMatej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik Gravitivity Zaera-Polo, Alejandro, and Jeffrey S. Anderson. The Ecologies of Building Envelope: A Material Historyand Theory of Architectural Surfaces. New York and Barcelona: Actar Publishers, 2021. The Anonymous DetailThe Imaginative Effacement ofJohn Hejduk’s MeasuredDrawings James Williamson Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson 1 1John Hejduk, Lancaster/Hanover Masque: Elevation and plan for The House of the Suicide(1979-1983), Pencil and colored pencil on vellum, 59 x 81 cm, Canadian Centre for Architecture 1Alain Robbe-Grillet, For a New Novel: Essayson Fiction. Translated by Richard Howard, (Boston: Northeastern UniversityPress, 1989), 165. 2See: John Hejduk, Mask of Medusa: Works1947–1983, Rizzoli International Publications: New York, 1985), 138- -52, 404--421. 3See: John Hejduk, The Lancaster/HanoverMasque. (London: Architectural Associa- tion, 1992). The Anonymous Detail “The hallucinatory effect derives from the extraordinary clarity and notfrom mystery or mist. Nothing is more fantastic ultimately thanprecision.”1 Alain Robbe-Grillet on Franz Kafka Introduction This writing examines the unique logic of fabrication in architectural draw- ings of the American architect, John Hejduk (1929-2000), especially as theserelate to the last phase of Hejduk’s work, generally known as the MasqueProjects. It proposes that Hejduk’s radical reconceptualization of the architec- tural program and his encompassing effort to give form to that program — through richly expressive drawings, paintings, and narratives — were para- doxically reliant on rather anonymous, even mundane, sets of drawingsemployed in the dozen or so physical constructions that emerged from theimaginative world(s) that the Masques create. As such, this writing will examine Hejduk’s late work in general but willfocus on those projects that Hejduk brought forward for more detailed elabo- ration in the measured drawings that often followed his initial sketches andwritten vignettes. These measured drawings—particularly those for theBerlin Masque2 and the Lancaster/Hanover Masque3—must be seen as insep- arable from the more provocative aspects in Hejduk’s masques, and they pro- vide both an extension of and an essential grounding for the work while plac- ing it in a reality that was, for Hejduk, ultimately and always ambiguous. The contrast between the Masque’s representational provocations andthe ordinariness of the measured drawings is essential to their importance, meaning, and our understanding of them. These measured drawings are ulti- mately not simply about clarifying the process of construction (as architec- tural drawing conventions would dictate) but paradoxically align with thelarger meaning of Hejduk’s masques — as part of an allegory that creates anopening into the imagination for both the viewer and the interpreter orbuilder of Hejduk’s work. The subject is approached initially by comparing Hejduk’s methods ofrepresentation with the surrealist painter, René Magritte. Magritte, as inHejduk’s measured drawings, avoids overt display of painterly or draughts- man-like skill in favor of a more anonymous – and importantly – more openengagement of the viewer’s imagination. This anonymity is essential to boththe artist’s and Hejduk’s work and their similar engagement of the viewer asa co-creator in their mutually created worlds, worlds filled with the paradoxi- cal and uncertain. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson The Anonymous Detail Outside of the world of art, particularly for those unfamiliar with ModernArt’s history and aspirations, the quality of a work of art, more specifically, a painted work of art, may be related to the artist’s hand – her or his skill inapplying paint in the creation of images. In the popular imagination, thisadroitness might even be thought of as chief among an artist’s abilities andthat which separates artists from non-artists. This may be, of course, toooverarching a generalization; the intent here is not to make an unimpeach- able statement on Modern Art but to emphasize how skill might be generallyviewed by those outside of artistic production. If the artist is a realist painter, this adroitness goes hand-in-hand withaccurate verisimilitude. If the artist deviates from realism, this adroitnessmay be related to her or his ability or inventiveness within a particular styleof painting as in the case of the Impressionists. Even in abstraction, adroit- ness is privileged — in the calligraphic precision of Jackson Pollack, RobertMotherwell, or the lyric gestures of Motherwell’s spouse, Helen Franken- thaler. In this way, the artist’s hand is her or his signature – seen in tell-taledetails of brushwork or gesture that distinguish one’s work from another’s, a Monet from a Degas, a Lee Krasner from a Joan Mitchell. But what of the contrary? What about artists who are uninterested inthese distinctions – who are not interested in the skillful artist’s hand, withimpressing the viewer with a mastery of technique, or with invention withina particular style? What if the artist believes that such things simply obstructour approach to their work and serve as a distraction from content and, mostimportantly, from the reception of ideas? And — given that the subject at hand is architecture and not painting — what about an architect who shares such a disinterest in the skillful handrevealed through the constructed images used so often in architectural repre- sentation (drawing), or in the case of the architect, John Hejduk, whose workis addressed in this writing: drawings, paintings, and buildings? John Hejduk’s architectural work is widely understood to be groundedin the revolutions of painterly abstraction of the early twentieth century andin the artists who led these revolutions. The list is long: Piet Mondrian (theDiamond Series), Juan Gris (the Juan Gris Problem at Cooper Union, whereHejduk was dean of the School of Architecture), Braque (the Wallpaper Seriesof his late works), and Le Corbusier as both a Purist painter and architect( the Wall Houses, especially the Bye House). These artists were explicitly intellectual and formal inspirations forHejduk’s remarkable series of architectural inventions. However, two addi- tional artists, also among Hejduk’s influences, are of particular interest for Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson4John Hejduk, “Silent Witnesses.” Perspecta, Yale Architectural Journal, vol. 19, (1982): 70– 80. This should be distinguished from anotherproject of Hejduk's with the same title. Thiswriting refers to the Yale Perspecta 19 submission of 1982and not Hejduk's five plinth-like installationof 1976. 5Ibid. 6Regina Marler, “Every Time I Look at It I FeelIll.” New York Review, Oct 25(2018): https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/rene-magritte-every-time-i-look-at-it-i-feel-ill/. The Anonymous Detail this writing and to Hejduk’s late work: the Belgian surrealist René Magritte4(1898-1967) and the Italian painter and printmaker of still lifes, GiorgioMorandi (1890-1964). Of the two, Magritte may have been the more conceptually influential. His attack on the arbitrary connection between words and images may verywell have influenced the disparity between titles, narratives, and images inthe formation of Hejduk’s Masque Projects, and the masques certainly adoptMagritte’s dissonance between word and image, with the titles of his objectsseemingly detached from their appearance. Magritte also plays a significant role in The Silent Witnesses5, a wordlesscompendium of images Hejduk submitted to Yale Perspecta 19, at a timewhen the Masque Projects were just developing. Comprised of reproductionsof four 35mm photographic slide sheets, images of Magritte’s paintingsappear prominently in the overall set of images – a collection whose absenttext presents the reader/viewer without the captions that might allow fordescription or any categorical distinction between images. The reader/vieweris left to surmise or conjure their own relationship between images, and thiswas the key intent in Hejduk’s submission. Magritte was not interested in skill, at least not as we might generallyunderstand it. His paintings are knowingly ordinary, and, in their execution, he deliberately plays down painterly skill. He might even strike someoneunfamiliar with his work as an amateur painter or a naďve artist—an observa- tion that purposefully masks and even facilitates the fact that he was a painterof profoundly deep thoughts. The apparently unskilled quality of Magritte’swork is certainly clear when he is compared to other surrealists. Max Ernst, for example, was a remarkable inventor and master of techniques, while Sal- vador Dali made realistic depiction his signature, and some might say, a mar- keting tool. The origins of Magritte’s approach to painting may come from his firstimpressions of de Chirico’s Song of Love — he supposedly wept…having “seen” thought for the first time6. However, just as likely a source ofMagritte’s approach to painting was his background as a draftsman of wallpa- per and as an advertising designer in the 1920s, an employment he returnedto in the 1930s when he ran an agency with his brother, designing filmposters under a pseudonym as a means of earning a modest living. Signifi- cantly, this is work where easily replicable and ordinary depictions were thedominant approach to image making (the kinds of images which were thecurrency of advertising at the time). As opposed to Dali or Ernst, Magritte’s intent relative to technique wasnot to confront the viewer with skillful and powerful depictions of some oth- er reality, thereby enticing the viewer into a dream-like and impossible world Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson 2 2René Magritte, The Key to Dreams (1930), Oil oncanvas, 81 x 60 cm. Private Collection 7Suzi Gablick, Magritte, (London: Thames andHudson, 1970), 9—10. The Anonymous Detail (Dali), nor to invent a world out of the world’s detritus, marvelously trans- formed (Ernst in his early collages and later frotages). As Suzi Gablik com- ments in her book,Magritte, “Magritte’s paintings are intended as an attackupon society’s preconceived ideas and predetermined good sense”7 Magritteintended to radically transform the ordinary world through its own terms — to unmoor us from our habits of thought by transgressing the pact betweenword and image [ 2 ] and confronting us with the arbitrariness of signs, andmost importantly, the delineation between the ordinary and theextraordinary. In Magritte, we are never quite sure what is ordinary and what is not — as is not the case with Dali and Ernst, where we are clearly looking into theirinvented worlds. And that is the point, and the absence of technique is vitalto this point – an absence that provides a portal into Magritte’s confoundingworld without the need for artistic erudition. Magritte creates this ratheregalitarian portal through ordinary means — by painting in a kind of ‘dumb’way – the way of a wallpaper draftsman, advertising illustrator, or a signpainter. The phrase “sign painter,” is a deliberate play on words. Magritte’s arbi- trary world of signs is achieved through a destabilizing play between wordand image where ordinary, unassuming things achieve extraordinarinessthrough a kind of magician’s sleight of hand. Ordinary objects — apples, combs, pipes — are painted in the most ordinary way and in a way thatemphasizes their ordinariness. This is not a celebration of the hand’s facilityin rendering specificity or special uniqueness to a depicted object. It is notthat beautiful apple or that exquisite and unique pipe. That apple is everyapple, and that famous pipe is every pipe. It is this ordinariness and absenceof specificity that allows our own individual imaginations to enter Magritte’sparadoxical world and become authors of our own understanding. — although our own quandary may be a more apt expression. Although not a surrealist, but also impacted by de Chirico, GiorgioMorandi is a painter of the ordinary in his own distinct way. His most widelyknown works are still life paintings of objects that he collected and meticu- lously, even obsessively, arranged and rearranged for each painting, drawingthe outline of each object’s position (its plan) on a sheet of paper beneath itto note its exact placement — an assembled world of dusty objects painted ina small studio in the apartment he lived in with his sisters for most ofhis life. The objects: common bottles, vases, and pitchers, were painted over inmute tones to disguise labels or any tell-tale markings the objects might have, thus ensuring their anonymity while emphasizing their commonness. Thelighting, through a single window, was carefully modulated, and the palette Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson 3 4 3Georgio Morandi, Still life (1955), Oil on Canvas, 25.5 x 40.5 cm, Private Collection 4John Hejduk, Painting for Berlin Night depictingJewish Museum: (1989), Watercolour on paper, mounted on board 21.5 x 27 cm, Canadian Centrefor Architecture 8See: Hejduk's City of a Hill project for theCooper Union, the Holocaust Museum in BerlinNight, and the Hejduk Memorial Towers insidethe City of Culture of Galicia, Spain. 9John Hejduk, Soundings: A Work by John Hej- duk. (New York: Rizzoli International Publica- tions, 1993), 134—137. The Anonymous Detail of colors was almost always muted. Additionally, it is said that Morandi neverremoved the dust that gathered in the studio, nor from the objects that hepainted. The overall effect is as if the objects are viewed through a haze – a sort of dusty translucence not unlike looking at an image under vellum – the paper Hejduk used for the measured drawings that will beaddressed below. The arrangement of objects on Morandi’s table [ 3 ], with these sameobjects appearing repeatedly, is metaphorically related to the city outside hisstudio window, the city of Bologna, known for its arcades and distinctivemedieval towers. Hejduk’s masques (themselves a form of urbanism), withtheir collection of repeated objects/buildings, are certainly analogous toMorandi’s still lifes, whose plans are as deliberately worked asMorandi’s tracings. It should also be noted that Hejduk’s attention to Morandi is also evi- denced in the numerous Morandi bottle- like towers in Hejduk’s work.8 Alsoof note is the fact that in the many drawings for these towers, especially thosein the book Soundings9, Hejduk adopts the cross-hatching of Morandi’s etch- ings to render both the towers and the dark, gray-toned atmosphere that sur- rounds them [ 4 ]. John Hejduk’s Masque projects began in the late mid 1970s with suchprojects as The House for the Inhabitant Who Refused to Participate( 1974-79), Thirteen Watchtowers for Cannaregio (1975), and The Cemeteryfor the Ashes of Thought (1975) but they come into full elaboration andprominence with the Lancaster/Hanover Masque (1979-83) and withHejduk’s submission of the Berlin Masque (1981) for the International Build- ing Exhibition Berlin (IBA). They continue in various forms until Hejduk’sdeath in 2000, with perhaps their most poignant manifestation in his Cathe- dral project (1996). In the Lancaster/Hanover Masque [ 5 ], Hejduk creates an enclosed com- pound for a small farming community in rural Pennsylvania filled withbuildings, building- like objects, and architectural creatures. These areaccompanied by a list of sixty- eight subjects and objects (The Suicide and TheHouse of the Suicide [ 1 ], or The Cellist and the Music House, for example) andfollowed by associated, fragmentary narratives concerning each subject andobject, accompanied by sparse and agitated sketches. At times, some of theobjects were later selected to be developed in sets of large, measured draw- ings in pencil and colored pencil on vellum. In the Berlin Masque, Hejduk responded to a rather straightforwardprogram for social housing on two adjacent blocks in the Wilhelmstrasse area Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson 5 5John Hejduk, Lancaster/Hanover Masque: Presentation drawing for the Lancaster/HanoverMasque (1980-1982), Pencil and colored pencil onvellum, 106.9 x 170.1 cm, Canadian Centre forArchitecture 10Isidore Ducasse Lautreaumont. AZQuotes.com, Wind and Fly LTD, 2025. https: //www.azquotes.com/quote/350048, accessed October 7, 2025. The Anonymous Detail of what was then West Berlin. He discarded the functional brief supplied bythe competition and instead drew upon a quote also included in the brief byItalo Calvino from Invisible Cities as a starting point. This quote describesone of the many of Calvino’s imaginary cities and specifically concerns thefleeting identity of the city over time and in the imagination. Hejduk pro- posed enclosing the two adjacent sites with walls and filling them witha series of objects like those described and drawn in the Lancaster/HanoverMasque. Both projects might be described as embodying or animating theemerging, occulted consciousness of a community and as an allegory fordwelling that is giving form to a subtle and unspecified mystery. It is also aninvitation to imagine the city as a construction of our own imagination— drawing upon the imprecise clues that Hejduk’s drawings and narra- tives provide. Hejduk radically upends the normative architectural program in theseprojects, and he notably removes the necessity of a client from the program- matic equation. It is true that in previous seminal bodies of work (the Dia- mond Series, Texas Houses, and the series of projects that include Ľ, ˝, and ľ Houses as well as the Wall House projects) there was no conventionalclient, but the presence of a client was implied. In the Masque Projects, nosuch relationship is present. Hejduk’s autonomy in inventing and authoringthe program of the masques is clear, and this is as important and radicallycreative an act as the creation of the individual objects that comprisethe masques. The objects that make up the masques are of a hybrid nature and appearto be a collage of disparate and layered elements. Many of the objects resem- ble a hybrid of industrial or agricultural architecture and many have clearbio/anthropomorphic qualities: the Security [ 6 ] project for Oslo, for exam- ple, resembles both a menacing dog-like head and a military pillbox attachedto a suspended wall attached to a cube-like building with stair like a tail andsuspended on stilts all of which sit on three pairs of rail wheels. The object, asmany of Hejduk’s objects are, is faithful to the surrealist’s mantra: “As beauti- ful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an oper- ating table,” that the surrealists took from Le Chants de Maldoror by theComte de Lautréamont. 10 The repeated use of stairs, rail wheels, the appearance of carnival- likeelements, and the fragmented narratives associated with the objects and eventheir repeated appearance in other masques all suggest that the objects indi- vidually, and collectively, are vagabond and itinerant. Many have shifting andlayered meanings. The House of the Suicide, for example, may be the face ofapotropaic figure Medusa, the flames rising off the suicide’s back, the black Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson 6 6John Hejduk, Security, 1987, Oslo, Norway, Photographer: Hélčne Binet 11The first widespread appearance of themasques coincided with Hejduk’s publicationof Mask of Medusa, the subject titled The Sui- cide is related to the Czech dissident JanPalach, who died by self-immolation in Praguein 1969. Palach’s funeral is the subject ofHejduk’s friend’s, David Shapiro’s, poem, TheFuneral of Jan Palach. Finally, The House of theSuicide is the title of a painting by Cezannealso an important painter to Hejduk (it issometimes titled The House of the HangedMan). 12Umberto, Eco, The Open Work (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 19. 13Ibid. p. xii The Anonymous Detail spires of Prague, Cezanne’s painting The House of the Suicide, or evenMagritte’s painting, The Rape.11It is not the intent of this writing to exhaustively address the nature ofHejduk’s masque projects, which have been done elsewhere by this authorand others. I am describing the masques to the extent that the descriptionmay serve as a preface to the discussion of Hejduk’s drawing that follows. Hejduk’s Masques are historically related to seventeenth- century theatri- cal productions of the English Renaissance architect Inigo Jones, also titledmasques. They are filled with masked actors in elaborate costumes, stage sets, and very large architectural props – building- like elements and even crea- tures — used in the performance for an elaborate allegorical production. Hejduk’s Masques constitute an equally elaborate world: an inventedworld of architectural characters and contraptions, at times filled withdancers, animals, spirits, and angels. The masques are inserted into the citywhere their engagement with that city and its implied, occulted, and transientspectacle may be played out, and then the spectacle moves on. This elaborateworld (or other city) is multi- form, a complexly composed, ambiguous wholemade of a collage of fragmented narratives, scant sketches, paintings, lists, indexes, and repeated characters whose names often change from masqueto masque. For the reader familiar with Umberto Eco’s The Open Work, Hejduk’smasques will seem familiar. Eco’s open work is characterized by its multiplici- ty of meanings, the audience’s (readers/viewers/listeners) participation andinteraction with the work, and a dynamic within the work that lacks fixedmeaning or conclusion. As opposed to more traditional views of art, the openwork invites its audience to actively participate in constructing understand- ing and meaning; it is a work in which the author offers “the interpreter, theperformer, the addressee a work to be completed” 12 As such, the audiencebecomes a co-creator in the work, and this process of co-creation is whatallows the work to be considered open and dynamic: a “controlled disor- der”13. Both the significance of Hejduk’s Masque Projects and their relation- ship to Magritte may be better understood in this regard. This point is equal- ly important in approaching Hejduk’s drawing—particularly his more anony- mous, measured drawings. The X-RayThoughts of an Architect Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson14John Hejduk. 1989. Victims: A Work by JohnHejduk. Maquette, 8. 15Hejduk was a Professor, Chair and Dean ofthe Irwin S. Chanin school of Architecture atthe Cooper Union for the Advancement of Sci- ence and Art 1964–2000. The Anonymous Detail 1. That architectural tracings are apparitions, outlines, figments. Theyare not diagrams but ghosts. 2. Tracings are similar to X-rays, they penetrate internally. 3. Erasures imply former existences. 4. Drawings and tracings are like the hands of the blind touching thesurfaces of the face in order to understand a sense of volume, depth, andpenetration. 5. The lead of an architect's pencil disappears (drawn away) metamorphoses. To take a site: present tracings, outlines, figments, apparitions, X-rays ofthoughts. Meditations on the sense of erasures. To fabricate a construction of time. To draw out by compacting in. To flood (liquid densification) the place-site with missing letters anddisappeared signatures. To gelatinize forgetfulness. From Victims. A Work by John Hejduk14 As mentioned above, in the process of the design of a particular masque, usu- ally near its completion, a set of measured drawings would be made by Hej- duk in pencil and colored pencil on vellum. Importantly, these drawings wereoften made in anticipation of the construction of one of the masque objectsin one of the multiple sites around the world where they were built. These objects were often constructed in academic settings wherea group of students and instructors would engage with Hejduk in the con- struction of one or more of the masque objects. After the Masque Projectsbecame known and attracted interest. Several such groups participated inthese efforts. Projects were constructed in London (The Collapse of Time), inPhiladelphia (Subject/Object), Oslo (Security), Atlanta (The House of the Sui- cide and House of The Mother of the Suicide), Buenos Aires (Masque), andBarcelona (House for a Poet), as well as several others. These efforts continueto this day. Typically, and significantly, the drawings were the only direction thatHejduk gave to these groups. As a pedagogue15, it was Hejduk’s view thatthese were teaching opportunities as well as collective opportunities for dis- covery, as mutually collaborative endeavors, and as part of an egalitariandesire for the exchange of ideas. This is to say that those who participated inconstructing the objects were clearly viewed by Hejduk as co-authors andcollaborators. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson 8 8John Hejduk, Lancaster/Hanover Masque: RetiredGeneral's House, Retired General's Place andTower Hill (1980-82), Pencil and colored pencil onvellum, 86.4 x 137.1 cm, Canadian Centre forArchitectur The Anonymous Detail Of all the remarkable representations in the Masque Projects, these measureddrawings are surprisingly the most ordinary and normative of architecturalrepresentations: measured plans, sections, and elevations drawn to scale. Absent are the agitated marks, quick sketches, and painterly gestures thatcharacterized Hejduk’s drawing of the individual objects during a masque’searlier development. These drawings provide a contrasting and complementary grounding tothe vibrant, fable-like world of the masques, and they place the masqueobjects in the real and ordinary world that architects who wish to buildinevitably inhabit. This ordinariness, however, is as deceptive as the represen- tations of Magritte or Morandi, and is a contributing, counterintuitive sourceof the Masque Projects’ mystery and power. For the students, architects, andacademics who engaged in their construction, they represented, and continueto represent, a significant challenge and an invitation for imaginative engage- ment with Hejduk’s work. Although drawn to scale and measured and approaching the specificityof construction documents (the drawings made to guide the construction ofbuildings), closer examination reveals these drawings to significantly lack thefull specificity of conventional construction documents, which by theirnature are highly specific and prescriptive. And just as someone from outsidethe world of art might assume that Magritte was an amateur or naďve painter, these drawings of Hejduk’s might be assumed to be those of an amateurdraftsman or beginning student. As opposed to convention, where multiple line weights each carry theirown codified sets of information, these drawings are drawn with only oneline weight – a delicate but obscuring simplification. Additionally, importantinformation is left ambiguous. Mechanical connections, for example, areindicated only by a simple small cross — indicating a point or intersection — but not the specific type of connection [ 8 ]. One might assume they indicatea bolt or a coach screw, but that would be an assumption, as neither is drawnas it easily could be. The notching of a wooden timber is an indication ofa kind of connection, but the additional information that would be necessaryto indicate the nature of this connection is absent. Colored pencil is applied as a simple tone and used to indicate materialor color, but in a painterly way rather than an architectural manner. Color israrely used in conventional construction drawing; the specification of color isoften limited to the detailed, written building specifications. In these draw- ings, blue may stand for glass, brown for wood, green possibly indicates pati- naed metal or possibly paint, black or grayish black may indicate metal orpainted wood, but it is unclear and open to some interpretation. Additionally, colors may change if the object is drawn in multiple masques, as many are. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson 7 7John Hejduk, Lancaster/Hanover Masque: CourtHouse and Prison House (1980-1982), Pencil andcolored pencil on vellum, detail, Canadian Centrefor Architecture The Anonymous Detail When part of teaching exercises, the measured drawings are particularlyvague, given the customary necessary clarity in a teaching exercise with sig- nificant technical (building) content. Further, some of the measured draw- ings, particularly those for the Lancaster/Hanover Masque, are deliberatelyobscured through the confounding superimposition of plan, section, and ele- vation, which Hejduk referred to as X-ray drawings [ 7 ]. Like a painting by Magritte, Hejduk’s measured drawings require one tobe drawn into them as much as one might draw out of them. They present aninterpretive space that oscillates between the proscriptive and interpretiveand between the objective and subjective. In other words, the drawings areless about the specificity of construction as would be normative in drawing ofthis kind, as they are an open work that requires its audience to accept itsmultiplicity of meanings and unfixed conclusions. Like a painting by Moran- di, the viewer or interpreter must embrace the subtle metaphors and hazydepictions that are part of the project’s content and creatively adjust to theelusive content’s impact on the process of building. The specificity demanded in construction is thus a product of theinterpreter’s/co-author’s efforts. And as such, the measured drawings invertthe usual and prescriptive use of drawings in architecture: initial sketchesadvancing in a linear direction toward a conclusion (in the completed build- ing). Rather, these are drawings whose interpretation demands building (asa verb) or construction (as an interpretive act) to be faithful to the complexworld of drawing(s), poems, and figures that precede them: Hejduk’s world ofallegorical complexity. This demands a certain space, an openness for the interpreter or viewer, and a certain deliberate ordinariness, just as is the case in a work of art bya Magritte or a Morandi. And it may require a certain normative — even ‘dumb’ — way of drawing and even a rather ‘dumb’ way of building, buta clearly contradictory knowing sort of dumbness. In Hejduk’s collaborative project, this open space is essential — an invi- tation to build the extraordinary world that lies within the drawings or narra- tives and to build a fragment of that world beyond. One honors richness notby boisterous and articulated speech (the overly articulated detail or self-con- scious mastery of building) but by allowing silence and the viewer to try tofill that silence. As such, the measured drawings allude to construction ratherthan specify its exactitude; they are more like signs or cyphers than drawingsused for the specific purposes of construction. The measured drawings are intheir way: mute…and hazy…their details covered in dust as it were…usingtheir relative anonymity and ordinariness to invite the viewer intotheir mystery. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramJames Williamson The Anonymous Detail Bibliography Eco, Umberto. The Open Work. Translated by Anna Cancogni. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Gablik, Suzy. Magritte. 1970. London: Thames and Hudson, 1970. Hejduk, John. The Lancaster/Hanover Masque. London: Architectural Association, 1992. Hejduk, John. Mask of Medusa: Works 1947-1983. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1985. Hejduk, John. “Silent Witnesses.” Perspecta, Yale Architectural Journal, vol. 19, (1982). Hejduk, John. Soundings: A Work by John Hejduk. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1993. Hejduk, John. Victims: A Work by John Hejduk. Milwaukee: Maquette,1985. Comte de Lautréamont. Maldorer: (Les Chants de Maldorer). Translated by Guy Wernham. New York: New Directions, 1965. Marler, Regina. “Every Time I Look at It I Feel Ill.” New York Review, Oct 25, 2018. https://www.nybooks. com/articles/2018/10/25/rene-magritte-every-time-i-look-at-it-i-feel-ill/. Robbe-Grillet, Alain. For a New Novel: Essays on Fiction. Translated by Richard Howard. Evaston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1989. To Err is Human Orsolya Gaspar Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar 1 1Interior space of the Rotunda di San Tomé. Theneat overall tectonic order grows out ofhappenstance stereotomy. 1Kingsley, 1915. 2Gáspár, 2022. 3Designed with architect Ipoly Farkas, andengineer Lajos Semsey. Kollár, 1969. 4Garcia, 2014. To Err is Human Introduction Upon entering on a bright summer day, it takes a couple of seconds to getused to the dim lighting of the Rotonda di San Tomé and absorb the straight- forward tectonic order of this 12th-century marvel of Lombard Romanesquearchitecture. 1 The central domical space is defined by the pyramidal stackingof an ambulatory and a gallery. The building is enclosed by massive, stonewalls, with eight columns arranged concentrically on each level in the interi- or. Upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that this neat overall tectonicorder grows out of total disorder: Each column is different, some capitals areinverted column bases from earlier building phases, the stereotomy of thearches is distinct in each bay, the layers of the stone masonry both in thedome and the wall are uneven [ 1 ]. Fast-forwarding eight hundred years, another dome of comparabledimensions was erected in Jena, Germany, for a temporary planetarium. Itwas the world’s first geodesic dome, and a pioneering thin concrete shell (thegrid was sprayed with concrete). 2 The steel grid was designed with a preci- sion of 1/20 mm, which is beyond even the current state of the art in metal- working capabilities. Only thirty years later, a late descendant of the Jenaplanetarium dome —a clever, yet unassuming, thin concrete shell factoryroofing in Hungary —got extended. 3 The project marked one of the earlyuses of computers in design. The extension mimicked the original geometry, but it was based on a more intricate mechanical model, not manageable byhand calculations. The complexity of those calculations stems from the slightmodification of the original geometry. Ever so subtle, that it is hardly notice- able; moreover, it barely affects construction. The builders of all three examples erred in their treatment of precision, as in, alignment: San Tomé is less precise in its details than one would antici- pate, while the two shells aim at more precision than what is physically feasi- ble or what is noticeable. Such errors result in inconsistency between design, construction, and perception. However, once we consider precision in themetaphysical sense, as in matching the intent, they all seem to be just preciseenough. The paper identifies this conflict between precision in the metaphys- ical (idea) and the physical (materialization) sense as one way to create poet- ics in construction. Precision, in its metaphysical sense strongly influencesthe narrative of the building, which in turn impacts affect. This paper is not about the vanity of precision. It is also not a swansongfor the ancient unity of material, building, and construction in the age ofcodified design and computers. Rather, it is about the (correct) scale andzoomability of tectonics in a digital era.4. I will use Frampton’s definition as Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar5Frampton, 1990. 6This is related to concepts virtual and actualform as in Frascari, 1984. p 501 7Zumthor, 2006. To Err is Human a starting point, which states that tectonics is “structural and material probitybut also a poetics of construction”. 5 Such a definition is well-positioned toconsider when and which tools and measures are appropriate in design andconstruction, so that they enable rather than control the process, and hence, ultimately, serve both probity and poetics. This paper is, furthermore, about being fallible as a builder (that is, being inconsistent as designer and/or constructor). If being fallible, or to err, is essentially human, is that desirable, necessary, or permitted within therealm of architecture today? It is beyond the scope of this paper to lamentwhether the future of architecture, including program and tectonics, is to bedefined by humans or machines. However, I attempt to show that architec- ture becomes poetic precisely because of the minor inconsistencies, errors, that create a rift between what it is meant to be and how it materializes, i.e., between the act of construing and the act of constructing. 6 The selected examples are fraudulent in many ways: they all representthe same, special architectural form (domical space), were not conceived byan architect, and are all conveniently dated. However, they share two featuresthat make them well-positioned to illustrate the arguments of this text: Theyall treat structural and material probity as commonplace, which makes themhighly tectonic, and they are all extremely functional or programmatic. 7Their similarity to each other and their good match with many qualitiesappreciated in tectonic architecture make them excellent guinea pigs to testthe hypotheses of the paper: First, that precision is a design parameter that isdependent not only on the tools and materials but also on intent. While thismight seem obvious, it is easily overlooked when our current tools allowpractically infinite precision. Second, that subtle inconsistencies betweenidea and materialization can be virtues, and more importantly, they might bethe features that create affect, or poetics. Consistency between design andconstruction (i.e., focusing on probity) was rightfully pursued when architec- ture was, by default, created by humans, who are inconsistent by nature. In anera, however, when machines, being presumably consistent by nature, arebecoming increasingly involved in the generation of architecture (includingdesign and construction), to preserve poetics, maybe it is the desired level ofconsistency that deserves a closer look. Dramatis Personae As the three buildings used as case studies throughout this paper are notwidely known, a short introduction seems adequate. The Rotonda di San Tomé, also known as San Tommaso, is located nearthe town of Almenno San Bartolomeo, outside Bergamo, Italy. It was built in Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar 2 2First Planetarium of Jena, exterior. The geodesicgrid is recognizable under the thin layer ofconcrete. To Err is Human the 12th century, likely replacing an earlier structure and reusing some of itsbuilding materials. It is a well-preserved edifice of Lombard Romanesquearchitecture, characterized by its distinctive features, including a sparselydecorated exterior (lacking sculptures) and a series of blind arches crowningthe walls, divided by pilaster strips. The circular building with a 16-m diame- ter (exterior) was constructed using local stones, without mortar, and fea- tured 1.15 m-thick walls filled with rubble. The few openings are strategicallyplaced, elevating lighting into the transcendent. While its origins are debated, it is assumed that it was part of a female monastery from the 13th century; assuch, it served both the local community and the convent. This dual purposeis evident in the distinct narratives and different craftsmanship of the ambu- latory and gallery detailing. The latter, which served the nuns, is morerefined and nuanced. The central space is capped by a stone masonry domewith an oculus on top and four openings (two in the shape of a Greek crossand two circular) arranged evenly around the base. The structure repeatedlysustained severe damage over the centuries, due to lightning, and it has beenrestored multiple times. The so-called first Planetarium of Jena, built in 1922, was a temporarymockup structure erected on the top of a building in the Zeiss Factory [ 2 ]. Zeiss, a manufacturer of optical devices, developed a new planetarium deviceand needed a smooth, spherical surface to test it. The dome was designed byWalther Bauersfeld, the lead engineer of the planetarium device. Due to thetemporary nature and limited load-bearing capacity of the roof, he opted fora lightweight solution. The original design of the 16 m-diameter dome envi- sioned a light steel grid dressed in canvas. However, canvas was not availableat the time, and Bauersfeld, advised by the concrete- contractor Dywidagcompany, decided to spray the grid with 3 cm of concrete. Hence, this domebecame the unlikely early prototype of the pioneering Zeiss-Dywidag rein- forced concrete shell construction system. While the reinforcement in anordinary reinforced concrete structure is also assembled before the concreteis poured, it is usually done over formwork. Bauersfeld’s grid was self-bear- ing. It was a triangulated grid, created as the subdivision of a spherical icosa- hedron, made of approximately 4,000 pieces of 60 cm long steel bars. As such, it was a geodesic grid, built more than 20 years before Buckminster Fullercoined the term ‘geodesic dome’. Bauersfeld lacked the means (in terms oftheory and computational power) to calculate such a complex structure asa space truss; instead, he devised an ingenious rule for triangulation thatallowed him to estimate the strength of the structure as a continuous surface. It also allowed him to use relatively few different bars, all within 20% differ- ence in length. Intriguingly, he settled for a “reasonable” approximation ofwhat he aimed for (equal-area triangulation of the sphere), and yet he pres- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar 3 3KÖFÉM Factory, second phase, shell roofing. Thedesign accentuates the uninterrupted horizontaljoint between wall and roof, despite thesegmented shell roofing. 8Mándoki, Gáspár, 2017. The economy stemmedfrom the construction technology, which ben- efitted from a reusable formwork and the inte- gration of the scaffolding system with thefuture-to-be overhead crane of the plant. 9There was a slight kink between the saddleand the conoid (they were only G0 continu- ous). The original design relied on the so- called membrane theory of shells for the sad- dle surface (which has limited applicabilitybut allows calculating the stresses in the shellas if it was a bending- free surface), and theconoid was considered as a cantilever (sup- ported by the wall). The saddle was a secondorder surface (a quadratic surface). Kollar’sdesign was a fourth order surface, and herelied on the bending theory of shells, whichaccounts for possible moments in the shell. To Err is Human cribed the length of each bar with 1/20 mm precision (that is less then0,01%). The roofing of KÖFÉM Factory is a cast-in-place thin concrete shell, designed by Lajos Kollár, a structural engineer and internationally estab- lished scholar of shell structures. The building is an eminent example of mid- twentieth- century industrial modernism in Eastern Europe, where shellstructures enjoyed a late heyday (compared to Western Europe). As labor wascheap, their material efficiency made them an economic choice, a primeargument in the centralized, socialist building industry. It was built in 1967as an extension of an aluminum processing plant in Székesfehérvár, Hungary. The roofing consists of a series of saddle shells (30 m x 11 m span, witha thickness of 6 cm). The first phase (completed ten years prior, and visuallyidentical to the second phase) spearheaded a renewed interest in cast-in- place concrete shells in Hungary after WWII. It was much celebrated for itseconomy and simple, but elegant shape.8 While saddle surfaces are bothpractical (it is easy to integrate clerestory windows) and structurally benefi- cial, their joint with the enclosing walls creates a design challenge (the edgeof a saddle is curved by default). The original KÖFÉM design addressed thisissue by adding a conoid segment to the shorter edge of the saddle, enablinga continuous, horizontal joint with the wall [ 3 ]. Kollár’s main contribution inthe second phase was that he substituted the three shell segments (twoconoids on the side and a saddle in the middle) with a single, continuous sur- face, i.e., he ‘form-found’ a shell with two curved and two straight edges. Heachieved a geometrically more honest solution, but it required a different, more complex mechanical model, hence, more complex calculations. 9 Observing chronologically, there is a move from assembly towards con- tinuum, from rugged to smooth. The two later structures also challenge theSemperian categories of stereotomic and tectonic (i.e., frame-like), eventuallydissolving into a hybrid form. It is hence tempting to simplify the emergingstory on precision into a trend from lesser to greater. This simplificationwould miss the point, as it only considers precision as a physical phenome- non. Metaphysically, precision emerges (or should emerge) as a balancebetween materials, tools, and processes. In short, it is intrinsically linked tothe context. In this sense, all three buildings are extremely precise, and itshould strangely be most evident for San Tomé, which is the ruggedest ofthem all: Just imagine what it would take today to erect a building of compa- rable dimensions as dry (!) construction (no mortar, no binder). Metaphysically, as I argued, precision is also linked to intent, which cre- ates a non-tangible layer of tectonics. As I will show, the subtle primacy ofidea over materialization is apparent in all three cases. All builders erred, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar 4 4Dome, Rotunda di San Tomé, showing theclerestory openings 10Paris et al, 2024. 11Kingsley, 1915, p. 41. 12https://www.lombardiabeniculturali.it/architetture/schede/BG020-00689/ last accessed07.07.2025 To Err is Human ever so slightly, on the side of the idea, and this translates into tangibleinconsistencies in precision in the physical sense. Narratives and Perceptions While the Rotunda has a central layout, it has an orientation: the altar, thefocal point in the Christian liturgy, is placed in an apse towards the north- eastern side. This disposition slightly deviates from the traditional east-westorientation of Christian churches, for a good reason: It has been shown thatthe axis aligns with that of the rising sun on July 3rd, which celebrates thetranslation of Saint Thomas, to whom the Rotunda is dedicated. 10 Lightingplays a crucial role in the symbolism of the Roman liturgical space. Accord- ingly, the perpendicular axes created by the clerestory openings on the drumfollow the same orientation, allowing the rising sun around the summer sol- stice to project the Greek cross into the Rotunda. During the winter solstice, the cross appears with the setting sun. This careful overall composition, withthe nuanced orientation and shaping of the clerestory windows, is in starkcontrast (or, inconsistent) with the ‘happenstance’ stereotomy of the building, which Kingsley describes as “(…) formed of rather roughly dressed blocksshowing great variation in size.”11 [ 4 ] . While such roughness is most likelyrelated to the incorporation of reused material, and as such, obeys orembraces an external constraint, there is also an intent. There is an apparentpreference for alignment with the ethereal by incorporating cosmogonicalsymbolism, as opposed to alignment in the banal sense, as in obeying thehorizontal when laying courses. In terms of precision, as in alignment, theRotunda is not necessarily a story of what was possible, but about deliberatechoice, which results in inconsistent tectonics. Inconsistency is also encoded into the tectonic narrative more explicitly: as briefly mentioned during the introduction of the buildings, there aremarked differences in craftsmanship, material, and, though less relevant tothe present discussion, in ornament, between the two stories of the interiorspaces. Historians link those differences to the use of the space.12 They arguethat the ground floor is finished in a much cruder manner than the gallery, asper the client’s preference. The ground floor was intended for the populus, while the gallery served the community of the convent. Accordingly, theirconstruction is credited to two different groups of masons, with those work- ing on the gallery identified as having more advanced skills. The use of pil- fered material is most apparent on the ground floor: the columns are reusedfrom (likely) an earlier building phase. As they did not meet the heightrequirement for their new placement, they have been accommodated by vari- ous measures. This variety is linked to the different dimensions of the pilf- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar13The intricate geometrical proportions shapingGothic structures (which are closely related toSan Tomé, both temporally and technological- ly) extend from the building scale down toornaments, providing a well-known example. 14Frascari, 1984. p 506. 15Pallasmaa, 2009 16Yann LeCun, a leading expert of AI and deeplearning suggests that the need to focus onselected preferences is inherently human, andstems from the cognitive limits of the humanbrain. LeCun, 2019. To Err is Human ered bases (many of them former capitals). The capitals across the eightcolumns have varying heights and differ in shape and ornament. In contrast, the columns in the gallery appear to be custom- made for the Rotunda. Theirformal language is consistent, with all capitals based on the Corinthian style– albeit their ornament is also unique. Having unique ornamentation foreach capital was not uncommon in Christian religious architecture, as thesculpted elements were literally meant to tell stories, in this case that of Tobitfrom the Old Testament. These differences in the tectonics of the two ambulatory spaces can alsobe understood as differences in precision (as in joining, richness of detail, orsmoothness). Based on what we know, this also appears to be a deliberate act. The emerging overall tectonics is not a mere consequence of the use ofreclaimed material or a certain level of craftsmanship. It is guided by a pro- grammatic intent; hence, the narrative is carefully construed. In case of San Tomé, even without the historical details and my interpre- tation, much of its tectonics is relatable, ‘readable’, the act of construing canbe physically experienced. This also holds, though to a lesser extent, for ele- ments that are intangible, such as the message of the lighting. However, con- struing can remain unseen for the most part, as is the case for the two otherdomes discussed below. Just like with a text, the ‘readability’ of architecture isnot, and has never been13 absolute; it depends both on the creator and thereader (user). Construing and Constructing Frascari refers to tectonics as both constructing and construing. 14 Construct- ing encompasses a whole range of activities from conceptualization to mate- rialization, from material engineering to the joining of steel bars that eventu- ally lead to a construct. Much of the theory of construing, implicitly orexplicitly, is related to the idea(l) of a thinking hand, an intuitive (andhuman) understanding of the innate properties of material and the process ofconstruction. 15 Per the premise of this paper, I suggest that an intuitiveunderstanding of both tangible (as material) and intangible (as geometry andstructural behavior) aspects of the act of building can manifest as construing. An intuitive understanding (expertise) is developed over time through dedi- cation. A preference for using that intuitive knowledge is the payoff for sucha cognitively costly process. It creates a subjective (or biased) focus duringthe process.16 I argue that this focus inadvertently creates minor inconsisten- cies in tectonics, which can affect (and possibly benefit) its perception, andoften manifests itself in relation to precision. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar 5 5Original Zeiss planetarium projecting device 17Assuming pin joints, a single layer gridshellcan only be rigid if triangulated. When consid- ering an equivalent continuous surface, thepin-joint assumption in the grid aligns wellwith the simplified, membrane model of conti- nous shells –bending moments can beneglected in both. 18Gáspár, 2022. The recursive algorithm hedevised cannot achieve equal area tessella- tion theoretically, but it was easy to calculate, and the resulting tessellation only deviated by1% from the theoretical optimum. 19So good that it outperforms most geodesicgeometries developed by scholars and practi- tioners (including Buckminster Fuller) overthe rest of the twentieth century. Bauersfeldwas aware of the benefits of his design: byincident, I refer to the fact that starting withan icosahedron was not self-evident, butrather intuitive. 20Dischinger, 1929. Given the conscious andassertive publication campaign around theZeiss-Dywidag system (May, 2015), this anec- dote might or might not be true, especially, astwo similar stories are told by Bauersfeld him- self (Bauersfeld, 1942 and 1957), where thecasus belli is identified as (a) a (since thenproved) temporary stability problem of theincomplete gridshell and (b) the timing of thepouring of concrete (either of them would beless flattering for the new business venturethan showing off its almost insane precision). To Err is Human Bauersfeld, who designed the geodesic gridshell encased in concrete for theZeiss Planetarium, was a mechanical engineer by training and worked in theoptical industry. He developed the concept for the modern planetarium pro- jecting device [ 5 ], for which the dome was to serve as a testing ground. When prompted to design a matching, domical projecting surface, he turnedto the same Platonic solid, the icosahedron, which served as a base for thedesign of the planetarium device. Because the structure had to be light- weight, he considered a gridshell. The requirement for smoothness necessi- tated the subdivision of the icosahedron’s faces. He developed a specific sub- division scheme, based on the spherical projection of the icosahedron, whichresulted in an almost equal-area triangulation17 of the sphere [ 6 ].18Bauersfeld’s expressed motivation in pursuing an equal-area triangulationwas to ensure a good fit between what he intended to build and the structuralmodel he wanted to use. He aimed to approximate the dense assembly of thebars as a continuous shell surface, and the chosen tessellation provided a rea- sonably uniform distribution of bars. By opting for a gridshell, Bauersfeld chose a structural solution that wasmaterially and economically feasible, like any engineer would. There is noclear rationale for connecting the geometry of the gridshell to that of the pro- jecting device, though. As the final surface was meant to beplastered/concreted over, its tangible impact was much limited. Such geomet- rical finesse was a subjective preference, a poetic component of construing, and yet, not completely l’art pour l’art. Construction and perception also ben- efited from Bauersfeld’s deep, intuitive understanding of the geodesic geome- try (i.e., a geometry based on a spherical polyhedron). There is an intricatebalance of how a geodesic geometry is perceived (how smooth a tessellationlooks) and how complicated its assembly is (how many different bars areneeded), and Bauersfeld’s solution provided an excellent trade-off.19 There is an interesting fluctuation of idealism and pragmatism inBauersfeld’s work that affects both construing and constructing. During thedesign phase, when he aimed at the equal-area tessellation he was an idealist, when he settled for the approximating algorithm, which also allowed him tostandardize much of the bar-lengths, he was a pragmatic. And yet again, inthe phase of construction, once the bars needed to be dimensioned, he pre- scribed their lengths within 1/20 mm precision, neglecting the realities ofsteel construction. There is an anecdote, however, shared by a long-time col- laborator of Bauersfeld’s, Franz Dischinger, on a subsequent project, wherea bar that was off by only 1 mm (on a 60 cm length) caused such deforma- tions in the grid that construction had to be stopped and the faulty barreplaced.20 Prescribing precision an order of a magnitude higher than thepermissible range of error makes sense. Rather than seeing a fluctuation, the Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar 6 6Subdivision scheme, geodesic gridshell of the firstPlanetarium of Jena. 21As appealing as it sounds, it isunlikely(=unproven) that Bauersfeld was con- sciously aware of the room of error for thebar-length. At best, it can be assigned to theuncertain territory of intuition. 22It is still an open question if it is theoreticallypossible to tesselate the sphere similarly, i.e., with ‘reasonably regular’ equal area triangles To Err is Human process can therefor also be interpreted as guided by intent21. Being loosewhere possible and strict where necessary. Moreover, the recursive formulahe used for the triangulation of the sphere, instead of being a generator ofimprecision (even if very small), can be understood as a simultaneous act ofconstruing and construction22: It works as if someone were drawing or act- ing out the subdivision. It can be understood as a metaphysical link betweentools and processes. Bauersfeld’s brilliance was in his ability to overcome the limitations ofhis tools (i.e., pen and paper) during the complex optimization task heundertook. His approach was theory- driven. Lajos Kollár, the designer of theKÖFÉM extension, on the other hand, leveraged the then-emerging technol- ogy of computers to tackle a problem that was previously successfullyapproximated by hand calculations. His approach was driven by technology, but, like theory did for Bauersfeld, technology served Kollár’s vision. Kollár was at the same time a practicing structural engineer with exten- sive experience and a respected scholar and academic. He felt that engineer- ing education lacked strategies to develop design thinking, and he emergedas an advocate for a holistic approach to design, something he actively pur- sued in his practice. In the case of the KÖFÉM factory, the poetic he soughtwas an honest match between geometry, structural behavior, and per- ceived forms. Enablers and Controllers The three examples —San Tomé, the Planetarium, and the KÖFÉM roofing— suggest a trend from less to greater control during the design phase, andconsequently, less autonomy for the builders. Indeed, such a trend exists. Theengineering revolution in the eighteenth century altered our expectations ofdesign: we require more certainty, which is generally a good thing, as it leadsto safer construction. We are, nevertheless, obliged to question the desiredlevel of control case by case, so that it enables high precision, in the meta- physical sense, achieving the desired trade-off between materials, tools, and processes. Shells are extremely thin structures. They can be thin, because (thanksto their curved shape) they primarily carry their loads through compressionand tension which is more effective than through bending. Their thinnessmakes them highly impactful as tectonic objects, but it also makes themhighly susceptible to mistakes, including those during design and construc- tion. Therefore, while the theory of shells developed rapidly in the first halfof the twentieth century, model building and testing, often on a full-scalebasis, remained an integral part of shell design. The collapse of the mockup Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar 7 7Shell surface of the KÖFÉM Factory roofing 23Kollár’s version was modelled and calculatedbased on the so-called bending theory ofshells, which indeed accounts for the pres- ence of bending moments. To Err is Human built to demonstrate the feasibility of the original design for the KÖFÉM fac- tory roofing (first phase) almost sank the project. Eventually, the designcould proceed, as the investigation identified that construction deficienciescaused the collapse. Such dramatic events, as the collapse of the mockup, were rare. Instead, the model experiments helped designers and contractorsevaluate their predictions based on theory alone and refine their structuralmodels accordingly. Kollár had extensive experience with physical models, which gave him an intuitive, experiential understanding of the behavior ofshells and an appreciation for the more complex, computationally intensivestructural models for shells. The so-called membrane model, which completely disregards bendingmoments in the shell, is elegant and straightforward, but its applicability isstrictly constrained. While it suits certain processes well (such as form-find- ing), in other situations, it becomes a controlling rather than an enablingtool. Such limiting control affects tectonics. As described in the introductionto the buildings, the first phase of the KÖFÉM Factory roofing appears to bea continuous shell from wall to wall, but in fact, it consists of three shell seg- ments. Moreover, technically only one of them, the saddle in the middle, actsas a shell; the conoids are cantilevered from the walls, and their behavior iscloser to a plate. The first phase design, from an engineering point of view, was ingenious: the saddle’s shape (side-length ratios) was chosen so as not toexert any thrust on the conoids [ 7 ]. The design creatively relied on the sim- pler membrane model to minimize calculations (which were done by hand), but a dissonance remains between perception and behavior. Kollár resolvedthat dissonance by defining a single, continuous surface that acted as a shell, albeit one that’s behavior is more complex23 than what the membrane modelcan describe. The then-emerging computers enabled him to apply the morecomplex model accordingly, and, from a conceptual point of view, to pursuea more holistic aim. The consistency Kollár achieved in the second phase of the KÖFÉMFactory is exciting from the perspective of this paper, as it is almost post- human, which would make him the opposite of fallible. However, it is essen- tial to note that his design builds upon an existing one. He did not change thematerial or the construction technology. The two geometries are indistin- guishable to the untrained eye (most eyes are untrained). He changed anexcellent design mainly to make the unseen, right. Not unlike Bauersfeld’sdimensioning, his process seems too precise, in the physical sense. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar To Err is Human Epilogue As exemplified above, high precision in the physical sense can be botha virtue and a vice, and it can be interpreted vastly differently depending onthe materials, tools, and processes involved. Today, amidst rapid technologi- cal development, it is tempting to opt for higher precision, because the con- struct is made infinitely zoomable during the design phase. The then-emerg- ing tectonics is only construed, though, it is virtual. To allow for constructionto shape tectonics in the physical realm, it is vital to treat precision in themetaphysical sense, which depends on the context and not on scale. The discussed case studies represent different regions on the broadspectrum of architecture, spanning from the primordial hut to structural art. In the physical sense, their precision is in vastly different dimensions, meta- physically however, all three are just precise enough. They are all highly pro- grammatic; they show honestly what they are made of and how they standup, and, while for different reasons, each of them is poetic. I argue that theyare poetic because they err in their treatment of precision, in the physicalsense. They treat it inconsistently. Such inconsistency is present in each caseeither within the design concept or it creates a rift between the idea and itsrealization. These examples are shaped by these subtle inconsistencies, because theircreator was fallible. The tangible precision of each project is not only subjectto what was possible, but to what the designer intended. Those intents arehighly subjective, informed by a dedication (to the divine), or years of train- ing in theory or practice. To fall for one’s interest or intuition, to be biased, toerr in this sense, is in fact, no longer only a human trait. Just as architectureis no longer practiced by humans without significant assistance from technol- ogy. It is therefore vital to be mindful of the role inconsistencies played increating the various components of tectonics in the past. It might guide us inshaping architecture to our liking in the future, either consistently or incon- sistently, but intentionally. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramOrsolya Gaspar To Err is Human Bibliography Bauersfeld, Walther. 1942. Vortrag u¨ber „Schalenbau“ bei der Feier der Siemens-Ring-Stiftung am 12. Dez. 1942 in Berlin (script) Carl Zeiss AG Archive, Jena Bauersfeld, Walther. 1957. Projection planetarium and shell construction. Proceedings of the Institutionof Mechanical Engineers. 171(1), 75-80. Dischinger, Franz. 1925. Fortschritte im Bau von Massivkuppeln. Der Bauingenieur. 6(10), 1-5. Frampton, Kenneth. 1990. "Rappel a l’ordre: The case for the Tectonic." Architectural design 60 (3-4) 20- 32. Frascari, Marco. 1984. “The Tell-the-Tale Detail”, In VIA, no. 7, Philadelphia: University Of Pennsylvaniaand MIT Press. 23–37. Fernández-Serrano, Martino Peńa, and José Calvo López. 2017. "Projecting stars, triangles andconcrete." Architectura. Vol.47(1-2) 92-114. https://doi.org/10.1515/ATC-2017-0006 Garcia, Mark. 2014. "Histories, Theories and Futures of the Details of Architecture." Architectural design84 (4). 14-25. Gáspár, Orsolya. 2022. "The optimization process leading to the tessellation of the first geodesic domestructure, the first Planetarium of Jena." International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 37 (1): 49-64. Kingsley, Porter Arthur. 1915. Lombard Architecture. Volume 2. Yale University Press. New Haven. Kollár, Lajos. 1969. "A Székesfehérvári Könnyufémmu bovítés II. ütemének héjszerkezetei. " (Shellstructures of the extension of the Aluminum Produce Plant at Szekesfehervar, Phase II) Mélyépítéstudományi szemle. Vol.19. (11-12): 541-545. (In Hungarian) LeCun Yann. 2019. Quand La Machine Apprend. Editions Odile Jacob, Paris (Hungarian translation byTypotex, Budapest, 2025) Mándoki, Réka, Orsolya Gáspár, and István Sajtos. 2017. "Shell roofing of the KÖFÉM Factory–historicalcase study on the effect of geometrical imperfection." In Proceedings of IASS Annual Symposia, vol. 2017 (11) 1-10. International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS), Hamburg. May, Roland. 2015. "Shell sellers. The international dissemination of the Zeiss-Dywidag system, 1923- 1939." In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Construction History (B. Bowen, D. Friedman, T. Leslie, T. and J. Ochsendorf, J., eds.). Vol. 2. 557-564. Pallasmaa, Juhani. 2009. The Thinking Hand. Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture. Wiley, New York. Paris, Vittorio, Virna Maria Nannei, and Giulio Mirabella Roberti. 2024. "From Digital Survey to StabilityAssessment in San Tomč, Almenno." In International Conference of Ar. Tec.(Scientific Society ofArchitectural Engineering): 544-555. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Zumthor, Peter. 2006. Thinking architecture. Birkhauser, Basel. (1st ed. 1988). https://www.lombardiabeniculturali.it/architetture/schede/BG020-00689/ last accessed 07.07.2025 Drifting PlatesTectonic Tools Nicholas Boyarsky Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky 1 1Alfred Wegener: Die Enstehung der Kontinente undOzeane,1929. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org. 1Frampton, Unfinished Modern Project, 1–2. Frampton refers here to his essay “Labor, Work and Architecture” of 1968 and discussesthe influence of Hannah Ahrendt’s “TheHuman Condition” of 1958 which draws dis- tinction between labor, which is a biologicalprocess, and work which is the ‘activity whichcorresponds to the unnaturalness ofhuman existence’. 2Lang, Superstudio, 222–227. Drifting Plates The constant grinding of tectonic plates heralds both transformation andcatastrophe. The awareness of inevitable destruction, often portrayed through themetaphor of ruin, is inbuilt in our building culture yet rarely acknowledged. Architecture negotiates the dialectic between construction and destruction, itis existential to this process yet elusive. It is manifest on the building sitewhich is both a tectonic site of contestation, adversarial in nature, anda forum for collaboration, where finely balanced tolerances are quantifiedand determined. Architecture sits uneasily between our focus on the buildingas a discrete object and a search for a cultural consensus of how we mightdesign and build in a broader societal context. Tectonics, in relation to build- ing practice and the pragmatics of construction, as Kenneth Frampton haslong argued,1 challenge the role of the architect calling for a critical resis- tance to the forces of industrialisation and for the development of alternativemodels of production. Such resistance has been manifest in a turn towardsthe ethnographic and to the critical study of vernacular means of building asarchitects have sought to reconnect, at moments in the 20th century, withtraces of pre-industrial behaviours and means of production that were evi- dent in what Superstudio called ‘extra-urban material cultures’. 2 Synchroni- cally the tectonics of drifting continental plates, a theory first controversiallyproposed in the early 20th century by German geologist and explorer AlfredWegener [ 1 ], which result in periodic catastrophes and in turn longer termgeological changes have been catalysts in new directions in architecturalthinking. Wegener’s articulation of the underlying dynamics of tectonicplates had offered an explanation for the disjunct biogeologic distribution ofpresent-day life found on different continents but having similar ancestors. This set a new context for thinking about tools that can be seen in theanthropologist George Kubler’s influential writings on the ‘Shape of Time’. Writing on the history of things Kubler brought drew attention away fromthe work of the individual artist to everyday objects and artefacts which, heargued, bore witness to processes of innovation, replication and mutationthat were in continuous conversation over time. Examples of this new focus can be seen in response to tectonic events inthe work of Japanese architect and ethnographer Wajiro Kon following theGreat Kanto earthquake of 1923, also in the work of COMU in response tothe Tohoko earthquake and tsunami of 2011, and, from a slower geologicalperspective of rock formation, seismic uplifts and erosion, in the work of thephotographer and artist Mario Cresci in Matera, Southern Italy in the 1970s. In each case it will be argued that programmatic impulses generated byintense tectonic activity have been the catalyst for the development of newtools to re-position architectural discourse through direct engagement with Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky 2 3 2Global Tools: front cover, 1973. Source: Alvin Boyarsky Archive. 3Global Tools, back cover, 1973. Source: Alvin Boyarsky Archive. 3Donato, Encyclopédie, 12. 4Illich, Tools for Conviviality, 11. 5Lang, Superstudio, 216–217. 6Ibid., 222–223. Drifting Plates local inhabitants and the materials and utensils with which they fashiontheir lives. In the context of our contemporary drive to the digital it is instructiveto draw distinctions between the production of architecture through the pri- macy of image that the all-encompassing lens of the computer screenempowers and the ethnographic means by which vernacular architectureshave traditionally been realised through what I will call tectonic tools. Thetool is an implement, an everyday object which, when it is fashioned, adaptedand used, becomes individualised and bespoke. As such the tool, which typi- cally embodies the totalising economic and political forces of labour withinbuilding, reverses its role enabling individual creativity and facilitating analternative approach to society. In this context it is noteworthy how depic- tions of tools and craft processes in Diderot’s 18th century enlightenmentproject, the ‘Encylopedie’, gave identity to and “galvanized a new social powerbase which ultimately led to the destruction of old values and the creation ofnew ones”.3 Tectonic tools are cultural artefacts imbued with the imprint oftheir individual makers which have been adopted in architectural discourseoften as the means to resist the increasing impact of industrialised produc- tion, becoming symbols for an alternative future. This resistance was aptlyframed in the writings of Ivan Illich who argued for tools for conviviality thatwould stand for the opposite of industrial productivity and foster “autonomous and creative intercourse among persons and the intercourse ofpersons with their environment”. 4 For Illich tools have a political dimensionand implicit in his call for a “retooling of society” is his argument that thenotion of tool, which is intrinsic to social relationships, extends beyond theimplement itself to encompass complex systems of infrastructure and inter- change. Retooling of society to promote alternatives to its reliance on indus- trial productivity called for a new understanding of the tool. This expandeddefinition, whereby the tool became the vehicle for speculation and experi- mentation with new modes of self-organisation, can be seen, in the late 1960sin the pages of the ‘Whole Earth Catalogue’. In the early 1970s the Italian rad- ical education project ‘Global Tools’ sought to build an anti-disciplinarianspace to reflect on arts and crafts in an anti-urban context [ 2 ] [ 3 ], whileSuperstudio’s ‘Project Zeno’5 and ‘Extra-Urban Material Culture’ focussedspecifically on the agrarian and vernacular and the potential for tools andhand crafted objects in forming alternative modes of operation. 6 Enzo Mari’s ‘Proposta per un’Autoprogettazione’ explored the potentials of tools for ‘selfdesign’ to challenge the design industry when he published instructions forordinary people to build his furniture designs themselves with simple materi- als and hand tools. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky7Illich, Tools for Conviviality, 11. 8Ibid., 23. 9Flusser, Philosophy of Photography, 81. Drifting Plates In ‘Tools for Conviviality’, published in1974, Ivan Illich put forward thenotion that conviviality represented the “opposite of industrial productivity” and was a condition of “autonomous and creative intercourse among personsand the intercourse of persons with their environment”. 7 He argued that if anindividual relates himself to his society through the use of tools that heactively masters these hand tools would “give each person who uses them thegreatest opportunity to enrich the environment with the fruits of his or hervision”. Illich made the distinction between convivial and manipulatory tools, which are restricted by institutional arrangements and which “constitute anabuse and changes the nature of the tool…as the nature of the knife ischanged by its abuse for murder”. 8 Contrary to this, and marking a profound break with the ethnographictradition, Vilem Flusser’s reading of the photograph as a technical image gen- erated by the functional apparatus of the camera accounted for a loss ofhuman agency that tools embody. By exposing the programmed nature of thephotograph Flusser revealed a tension between the photographer’s creativegoals and the camera’s programming that characterises the dilemma of thetectonic tool. He describes the shift in code structures from historical think- ing which he argues is linear and rooted in alphabetic writing to the condi- tion of post-history where nonlinear, pixelated technical images predomi- nate. In a world dominated by the apparatus a critical resistance offers “thelast form of meaningful revolution: reclaiming significance and freedomthrough conscious engagement with technology”. 9 Seismic Tools The Great Kanto Earthquake of September 1923 occurred when the Philip- pine Sea Plate subducted beneath the Okhotsk Plate along the Sagami Troughin Sagami Bay, with an epicenter 60 kilometers southwest of Tokyo. Over thenext ten days there were 1,200 aftershocks across the region. More than halfof Tokyo and most of Yokohama were devastated, massive firestorms spreadcreating chaos and leading to vast numbers of casualties; approximately 2.5million people were left homeless [ 4 ] [ 5 ]. In the aftermath of the destruc- tion vigilante groups formed targeting Korean and Chinese migrants, an esti- mated 6,000 Koreans were murdered. The homeless gathered in large openspaces such as Ueno Park and the Imperial Palace grounds. The authoritiesconstructed temporary barracks, many erected makeshift shacks creating vastshanty towns with stores and rudimentary businesses. Wajiro Kon, professor of architecture at Waseda University had, since1917, been surveying traditional Japanese farmhouses in rural areas. In 1922Kon and Odauchi Michitoshi were commissioned by the colonial government Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky 4 5 6 7 4Vintage postcard: The Great Earthquake and Fireof Yokohama,1923. Source: collection of the author. 5Vintage postcard: The Great Earthquake and Fire, view of Yokohama Town. Yokohama on September 1,1923. Source: collection of the author. 6Wajiro Kon: Interior of a hut, Kanmuri-Iwa, Urayamamura, Chichibu district, Saitama prefecture, 1925. Source: Kogakuin University. 7Wajiro Kon: Variations of resting labors, 1925. Source: Kogakuin University. 10Traganou, Design and Disaster, 12–13. 11Hsieh, “Disquieting Ghost’s,” 29. Kon’s neolo- gism, Kogengaku, which translates as moder- nology in English, ‘removed the central char- acter ko in kokogaku, the Japanese word forarchaeology, and replaced it with gen, mean- ing the present.’ 12Izumi, Wajiro Kon, 56. 13Hsieh, “Disquieting Ghosts.” 29. Drifting Plates of Korea to study villages, homes, equipment and customs in several regions. Following the earthquake Kon began visiting areas where the homeless con- gregated to photograph and sketch the barracks. His recording of the circum- stances that people found themselves following the disaster developed intodrawn surveys of the lives of the dispossessed, the people themselves and theobjects, furniture, utensils and tools of their newfound situation [ 6 ]. As busi- nesses began to appear amongst the barracks Kon and his colleagues foundedthe Barrack Decoration Company with students of design and the arts inorder to artistically decorate the barracks. Kon’s interests in the urban phe- nomena that he was observing led to surveys of the mores and customs of theGinza district [ 7 ]. He later wrote of this ethnographic response to thechanged circumstances that he was witnessing as an attempt to “develop ananthropological method in order to record and examine comparatively ourcontemporary material culture” so that “individuals should be able to distin- guish society’s diverse personae, and the trends of material culture, in orderto prepare for their own way of living, unhampered by compulsions to imi- tate”.10 Kon extended his surveys, which he called Modernology studies11, across Tokyo. These studies of urban phenomena focussed on his interest inthe rapidly changing urban space and people’s lifestyles. Kon created mapsshowing the distribution of stores, maps combining statistical data and draw- ings of people. The graphics were made by stage painters and other artists. Kuroishi Izumi has highlighted Modernology’s emphasis on the details ofeveryday life and how economic difference influenced different patterns ofhabitation, emphasising Kon’s interest in “relationships between people andthings and space”.12 For Lisa Hsieh Kon “considered his work archaeology, but carried out in the ruins of a present-day city”,13 she has argued that Kon’sstudies of interiors showed an increasing juxtaposition of traditional Japanesechattels and imported modern novelties such as gas stoves and refrigerators. As such Modernology represented a call to awareness and ultimately a meansof resistance to the inevitability of rapidly changing Japan. Kon Wojiro’sresponse to the provisional arrangements following the earthquake crys- tallised a moment of transformation in Japanese society. His focus on the dai- ly habits of survivors forced to innovate and adapt to change highlightedtheir dependence on the objects and tools of everyday life as they reshapedtheir temporary homes. The depth of Kon’s ethnographic gaze brought a newfocus to the minutiae of daily life and the agency and control that the dis- placed urban masses exerted on their immediate urban environment [ 7 ][ 8 ]. Observation and focus on the realities of daily living conditions became toolsfor understanding how people adapt to change, in this case to dynamic tec- tonic disruptions, and how their reliance on domestic objects and utensils Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky 8 9 8Wajiro Kon: Comprehensive illustration of thehousehold of a newly married couple, 1925. Source: Kogakuin University 9Wajiro Kon: Comprehensive illustration of itemsneeded by a woman in Fukagawa, 1925. Source: Kogakuin University 14Kaijima, Made in Tokyo, 8–9. 15Akasegawa, Hyperart:Thomasson, 6–7. Drifting Plates were integral to their interior lives as they confronted change and a growingmaterialism in society. The merging of ethnographic and art practices deployed by Kon and hiscollaborators was to influence Japanese spatial practices in different forms inthe later 20th century. It resurfaced in the conceptual art of Neo-Dadaist Gen- pei Akasegawa, who had studied Modernology with Kon, in his ‘Hyperart: Thomasson’ project. Akasegawa in turn, influenced Tokyo-based architectsAtelier BowWow whose practice embedded an ethnographic lens into theirsurveys of the banality and strange found phenomena of post bubble Tokyoof the 1990s which Yoshihara Tsukamoto has called “shameless- ness” and “da-me architecture” (“no-good architecture”). 14 Akasegawa discovered thefirst Thomasson, named after the legendary American baseball player GaryThomasson who was transferred in 1972 at great expence by the NipponLeague only to fail disastrously with countless strikeouts. The ‘Yotsuya Stair- case’ was a functionless exterior staircase built against the side of a buildingwhich did not have a door or any means of entering the building. The stair- case, a landing approached by two flights of steps with a handrail, was effec- tively purposeless and useless. Akasegawa was puzzled by his discovery, “everything in our capitalist society has to have a purpose. So where does thatleave this particular staircase? Could you even call it a staircase? Of courseyou can’t”.15 Akasegawa concluded that the staircase could only be a work ofart shaped like a staircase for which he coined the term ‘Hyperart’. The dis- covery and naming of the ‘Yotsuya Staircase’ led to the identification of mul- tiple examples of redundant and purposeless examples of Hyperart acrossJapan. The Thomasson Observation Society was founded to encourage thepublic to identify Thomassons, this in turn led to the development of theStreet Observation Society. Drawing attention to redundant architectural ele- ments in the modern Japanese city through direct observation and recordingAkasegawa introduced a method to question the drivers of modern develop- ment, progress, profit and functionality. The Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami of 2011 occurred whenthe Pacific plate subducted under the Honshu plate. The break caused theseabed near the epicenter to rise by 24 meters and to move towards the JapanTrench by 50 meters. The tsunami caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear dis- aster, primarily the meltdown of three reactors and the discharge of radioac- tive water. Hundreds of thousands of residents were evacuated. Whereas theGreat Kanto earthquake was pivotal in Japan’s shift to modernity, the Tohokoearthquake came at a time of uncertainty amidst growing awareness of envi- ronmental catastrophe and a questioning of the notion of progress. The dis- aster and subsequent relief measures focussed primarily on large scale infra- structural reconstruction. Meanwhile local residents and surviving commun- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky 10 11 10Shintaro Tsuruoka: Community Furniture Project, 2017. Source: COMU LLC. 11Yuko Odaira: Community Furniture Project, 2017. Source: COMU LLC 16This material is based on personal communi- caton with Shintaro Tsuruoka and Yuko Odairaof COMU, 2024. Drifting Plates ities were housed in temporary barrack structures for many years. The archi- tectural profession’s response to this disaster faced many complexities regard- ing procurement, bureaucratic inertia and an overall mismatch of expecta- tions. Apocryphal stories tell of Japanese star architects approaching localgovernment offices with offers to design buildings only to be met withincomprehension and therefore rejection. Upset rather than humbled thesearchitects withdrew. It became apparent that architects were not able to com- municate with either local inhabitants who had been largely left out of thelarge scale process of reconstruction or local officials who were charged withadministering support. The situation called for a recalibration in the waysthat architects could contribute. COMU, a practice founded by architectsShintaro Tsuruoka and Yuko Odaira,16 set a new example by embeddingthemselves with local communities, living alongside them in barracks fora number of years. This offered a different perspective to the normally trans- actional relationships between professional and client, a process that COMUcalls ‘undisciplining’ which entailed establishing the means of offering skillsand services direct to local communities. To do this successfully involvedunderstanding local resources that were available, seeking to enable localcommunities to make and construct small scale projects such as public furni- ture or gardens [ 10 ][ 11 ], and convincing local government to provide subsi- dies for local people to participate in the act of making. The Community Fur- niture Project developed as COMU held over sixty workshops with thirteendifferent communities to collectively design and construct furniture piecessuch as public benches. The success of the project relied on developing skillsto communicate directly with community members, to identify and situateachievable projects within the local context, and to encourage participants toassume ownership of the making process. COMU’s practice expanded toengage with local government officials in Japan and in Banda Aceh, Indone- sia, which had also been affected by the tsunami, through workshops foster- ing design skills and a refocussing of attention from the large scale to themicro scale. Projects range from furniture pieces and community walks toadaptive re-use of tsunami escape buildings, structures constructed for futuredisasters, and a disused a bank. Each project is conceived as a ‘model action’or catalyst for change within a community. COMU’s tools are less to do withmaking than “making a way to put people together” and as such mark a shiftfrom ethnographic and observational practices initiated by Wajiro Kon andothers towards a questioning of the limits of disciplines, the appropriatenessof political structures at the local scale, and the promotion of durationalprojects that coalesce as social constructs. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky 12 12Mario Cresci: Attrezzi e modellino dalla serieMisurazioni, 1977. Source: Mario Cresci. 17Levi, Eboli, 86–87. Levi’s sister’s account ofa visit to Matera, which she described as ‘likea schoolboy’s idea of Dante’s Inferno’: ‘inthese dark holes (the cave homes) with wallscut out of the earth I saw a few pieces of mis- erable furniture, beds, and some raggedclothes hanging up to dry. On the floor laydog, sheep, goats, and pigs. Most familieshave just one cave to live in and there theysleep all together; men, women, children, andanimals. This is how twenty thousand peoplelive… I have never in all my life seen sucha picture of poverty’. 18Franke,”Measure of Autonomy,” 66. Drifting Plates Camera as Tool The town of Matera in Basilicata, Southern Italy, and its surrounding land- scape is the product of slow geological change alongside seismic activitywhich has resulted in tectonic uplifts and faulting that have dramaticallyshaped the overall topography and exposed the terraced landscapes of softcalcarenite rock to the Gravina River which carved deep canyons and ravinesinto the limestone. Caves carved into the rock have been inhabited for mil- lenia. By the late 1940s, some 15,000 residents were living in caves in the areaknown as the Sassi. Poor farming families lived alongside their livestockenlarging their homes by scraping away at the soft rock. These unhealthy andextreme living conditions were first publicised by Carlo Levi in 1945 in hisbook ‘Christ Stopped at Eboli’17 and this exposure led to government inter- vention resulting in the 1952 special law for the reclamation and evacuationof the Sassi. All 15,000 inhabitants were decanted into purpose built housingblocks in a move aligned with land reforms and expropriation of land acrossthe south that radically transformed the everyday lives of peasants in anattempt to calm social tensions. Whilst the habits and livelihoods of the cavedwellers were profoundly affected, their material culture, their beliefs, mythsand rituals, which the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci had referred to, inhis ‘Prison Notebooks’, as “folklore and commonsense”, persisted in “implicitopposition” to the dominant class culture of post war Italy.18 Mario Cresci, photographer and artist, first visited Basilicata in the 1967as part of the urbanist research group Polis, a team of sociologists, anthropol- ogists, architects and urban designers, who were commissioned to carry outa survey of the town of Tricarico. Cresci settled in Matera where he stayed forthe next twenty years developing a remarkable expanded art practice thatsought to engage with local people and their customs through recording anddocumenting their crafts, textiles and work tools [ 12 ]. Photography forCresci became a means to reflect on his experiences of the Mezzogiorno andto identify and measure the customs and anima of the rural areas that wereundergoing rapid transformation. In the series Ritratti Reali Cresci invitedmultiple generations of the same family to be photographed in their homesholding family photos and other momentos. Cresci invited his sitters to workon images that he had taken of them at home by bringing them to his studio. Often images were further reversed and altered to become drawings and art- works. In this way the textures and geometries that Cresci derived from thelandscapes he recorded became a dynamic record of change and continuity. Local neighbours and acquaintances are photographed with the tools andobjects that ground and situate their daily lives. Tools are often handmadeand personalised, the carving of figurines and miniatures are recorded Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky 13 14 15 13Mario Cresci: Uno di coltelli da lavoro di Pietro DiCuia, 1978. Source: Mario Cresci. 14Mario Cresci: Cafagna, 1978. Source: Mario Cresci. 15Mario Cresci: Misurazioni, book cover. 1979. Source: Mario Cresci. 19Harris, “Cresci in Basilicata’, 93. Drifting Plates alongside the implements and wood shavings that were involved in theprocess of making [ 13 ]. The viewer is invited to witness traces of an alterna- tive societal model that is close to Illich’s vision for conviviality, one thatexposes the hidden structures of the South and rejects a nostalgic renderingof the present [ 14 ]. Cresci collaborated with local farmers, artisans and stu- dents to investigate local histories and traditions through photography withthe ambition, as Lindsay Harris writes, ‘not only to learn the customs, beliefsand physical surroundings that distinguished Matera’ but also ‘to repositionthe Mezzogiorno as the vanguard of contemporary design’.19 Cresci’s ‘Mis- urazioni’ (measurement) project was born of this creative collaboration andresulted in the 1979 publication ‘Misurazioni. Fotografia e territorio’ [ 15 ]. Exploring relationships between local inhabitants and the objects and toolsfound in their homes, alongside artworks that Cresci generated from thisprocess, it can be read as a manifesto for cartographies of place that that offerthe means towards the imagination for an alternative future in a deeply con- flicted society. If the underlying forces of social change mirror the tectonics of shiftingplates as they respond to the dynamics of catastrophe alongside moments ofprogress, and then regression, the agency of the architect cannot be restrictedto a reliance on the current narrow definition of tectonics as the formal act ofbuilding. A broadening of terms is called for whereby tectonics, in responseto these perturbations, become a means of mediation between materialityand technical objects (tools), and between environmental forces and ques- tions of aesthetics. Tools of seeing that are born from the underlying pro- grammatic continua of slow moving catastrophic events can detect and antic- ipate advance traces of these disruptions and prepare us to act accordingly. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramNicholas Boyarsky Drifting Plates Bibliography Akasegawa, Genpei. Hyperart: Thomasson. New York: Kaya Press, 2009. Franke, Anselm and Giuliano, Elisa “The Measure of Autonomy.” In Mario Cresci. An Exorcism of Time, edited by Marco Scotini and Simona Antonacci, 62-76. Rome: Contrasto, 2023. Borgonuovo, Valerio and Fancheschini, Silvia, Global Tools. When Education Coincides with Life. 1973- 1975. Rome: Nero, 2018. Cresci, Mario, Misurazioni. Fotografia e Territorio. Oggetti, Segni e Analogie Fotografiche in Basilicata. Matera: Meta, 1979. Donato, Clorinda and Maniquis, Robert M., The Encyclopédie and the Age of Revolution. Boston: G.KHall, 1992. Flusser, Vilem, Towards a Philosophy of Photography. London: Reaktion Books, 2014. Frampton, Kenneth. The Unfinished Modern Project at the End of Modernity: Tectonic Form and theSpace of Public Appearance. London: Sir John Soane’s Museum, 2019. Harrris, Lindsey, “Mario Cresci in Basilicata.” In Mario Cresci. An Exorcism of Time, edited by MarcoScotini and Simona Antonacci, 84-98. Rome: Contrasto, 2023. Hsieh, Lisa. “Architecture’s Disquieting Ghosts.” Log 41 ( 2017): 27-36. Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. London: Calder & Boyars, 1973. Izumi, Kuroishi. Wajiro Kon – Retrospective. Tokyo: Seigensha, 2011. Kaijima, Momoya, Kuroda, Junzo and Tsukamoto, Yoshiharu. Made in Tokyo. Tokyo: Kajima InstitutePublishing Co., 2001. Kubler, George. The Shape of Time. Remarks on the History of Things. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962. Lang, Peter and Menking, William. Superstudio. Life without Objects. Milan: Skira, 2003. Levi, Carlo. Christ Stopped at Eboli. London: Penguin, 2000. Mari, Enzo. Proposta per un’Autoprogettazione. Milan, Centro Duchamp, 1974. Traganou, Jilly and Izumi, Kuroishi. Design and Disaster: Kon Wajiro’s Modernologio. New York: Parsons, 2014. What Lies Beneath the Surface Patrick Doan Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramPatrick Doan What Lies Beneath the Surface “The cosmetic is the new cosmic…” Rem Koolhaas - Junkspace Introduction In 2002, the Modern Art Museum of Ft. Worth (or the Modern as it is calledin Ft. Worth) located in the museum district of Ft. Worth, Texas, opened tothe public. Designed by the Japanese Architect and Pritzker Laureate, TadaoAndo, the new museum was conceived and built to serve as the Modern’s newhome; replacing the existing museum building which had become too smallto hold the museum’s vast and growing collection. Situated across the street from the Kimbell Art Museum designed byLouis Kahn, immediate similarities and nods to the Kimbell can be read inthe Modern: a relationship of garden to building, galleries planned and artic- ulated in bays, and emphasis placed on the integration of natural light intro- duced into the gallery spaces through the ceiling and roof structure. Ando’suse of exposed cast-in-place concrete walls are featured prominently withinboth the conceptual development and the physical realization of the muse- um, drawing immediate comparisons to the care taken in the design and con- struction of the Kimbell concrete walls. However, appearances can be deceiving. A deeper examination into theconstructive tale of the Modern reveals that over fifty percent of the form tieholes that articulate the finished face of the exposed concrete walls are cos- metic. They are present only to maintain the visual articulation and continu- ity of the finished concrete surface and pattern Ando desired, playing noactive role in the physical construction of these walls. In light of this revelation, would Ando’s use of the cosmetic form tie beconsidered a case of architectural blasphemy, where the form tie’s construc- tive nature is reduced to visual imagery, especially in the face of Kahn, whosepresence casts a large and influential shadow on questions surroundinga building’s making? Or could this be a situation where the use of the cosmet- ic form tie is not about a disregard for ‘constructive honesty’ on Ando’s part, but rather suggests a different sensibility in the consideration of the wall, where surface expression governs. This paper will address Ando’s use of the cosmetic form tie at the Mod- ern examining the significance of the constructive, formal, spatial, and expe- riential conditions and questions that emerge from its application. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramPatrick Doan1Making the Modern, directed by Harry Lynch(a TRINITY FILMS production, 2003), DVD. 2Making the Modern, Lynch, DVD. 3W. Mark Gunderson, “Architectural Concrete: The Pursuit of Perfection,” in TEX FILES: Issue01: Toward Architecture 2 The University ofTexas at Arlington, ed. Karen Bullis (Arlington, Texas: University of Texas, School of Architec- ture, 2004), p. What Lies Beneath the Surface In Situ The Modern is situated within the museum district of Ft. Worth, Texas, nes- tled within a dense and rich architectural array of museums and civic institu- tions that include The Amon Carter Museum of American Art designed byPhilip Johnson, the Kimbell Art Museum designed by Louis Kahn with a justrecently completed addition designed by Renzo Piano, and the Will RogersMemorial Center that includes a 2,800 seat auditorium and a contiguousseries of exhibit halls that total 94,000 square feet. The Modern is the oldestestablished museum in Texas chartered in 1892 as the Fort Worth PublicLibrary and Art Gallery. Prior to the commissioning and completion of themuseum’s new building by Ando, the Modern’s home was located one blockto the southwest of the Kimbell. Its first permanent facility was completed in1954 and offered 12,000 square feet of exhibition space. Because of its grow- ing and extensive collection, a new museum was needed. 1 In 1996 the Modern held an invited competition asking six architects toprovide design proposals for a new 150,000 square foot museum. The sixinvited architects were Tadao Ando, Arata Isozaki, Ricardo Legoretta, Richard Gluckman, Carlos Jimenez, and David Schwarz. Of the six submis- sions, the jury unanimously selected Ando’s in May of 1997. Construction began in 2000 and in 2002 the new Modern opened itsdoors to the public. The Modern sits on an eleven-acre site across the streetfrom the Kimbell Art Museum and provides 53,000 square feet of exhibitionspace. 2 Exposed On March 2, 2004 a symposium entitled Architectural Concrete — Pursuit ofPerfection was held at the University of Texas at Arlington in Arlington, Texas. Organized and moderated by W. Mark Gunderson, AIA — an architectpracticing in Fort Worth, Texas — a panel comprised of Fred Langford, con- sultant to Louis I. Kahn on the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, the Kim- bell Art Museum in Fort Worth and the Capital complex at Dacca; Tom Sey- mour, past president of Thos. S. Byrne, Inc., responsible for the constructionof the Kimbell Art Museum from 1969–72; and Paul Sipes, Vice President ofLinbeck and Senior Project Manager for the construction of the Modern ArtMuseum of Fort Worth, discussed how Ando and Kahn considered and usedconcrete in these two museums. 3 It was from this symposium that the use of the cosmetic form tie in theModern was revealed. Typically, the form tie is considered a constructivenecessity to the making of a cast-in-place concrete wall. They work in Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramPatrick Doan 1 1Form tie hole: ‘necessary’ or ‘cosmetic?’ – theModern 4Paul Sipes, e-mail message to author, August14, 2012. 5“Langen Foundation,” PERI-USA, accessedMarch 14, 2017. https://www.peri-usa.com/projects/cultural-buildings/langen-foundation.html 6Gunderson, “Architectural Concrete,” 69. 7Sipes, e-mail message to author, August14, 2012. What Lies Beneath the Surface combination with the formwork system to secure the forming panels in placeduring the placement and curing of the concrete. The formed holes left in thefinish face of the concrete wall is the constructive mark left by the form tie. The reduction of required form ties was enabled using a wood girderwall formwork system developed by PERI, a provider and manufacturer ofconcrete formwork and scaffolding systems. The PERI – VARIO GT 24 wasthe specific system used in forming the concrete walls at the Modern. Thestrength offered by this formwork system to resist the hydrostatic loads gen- erated during the placement of the concrete allowed for a reduction in thenumber of form ties necessary to secure and hold the formwork in place.4 Tocompensate for the reduction of required form ties, and maintain the orderedexpression of the wall that Ando desired, the cosmetic form tie, or ‘blindplug’ as the PERI website described them, was introduced — secured to theface of the formwork and designed to match the diameter and depth of the ‘active’ form tie holes.5 Starting from the finish floor every even row of formtie holes is cosmetic in the Modern. 6 The ‘active’ form tie openings as well as the cosmetic form tie depres- sions were sealed and finished with a cementitious grout. The face of thegrout was held back from the finish face of the concrete wall one quarter ofan inch to provide depth and shadow; bringing emphasis to the pattern theform ties created on the walls surface. Once the wall was completed, itbecame virtually impossible to distinguish between the two [ 1 ]. In discussing the use of the cosmetic form ties at the Modern, Paul Sipesexplained that the primary reason they were considered was to, “…eliminate a major item that could create a form leak problem andtherefore produce a less than desirable concrete. Keeping the ties sealed toprevent concrete leakage at the tie hole location of the formwork is more dif- ficult than keeping the formed corners from leaking. The eliminating ofa process not needed to produce the result and increase the quality of theconcrete was readily accepted by the project team. It did cost less to installthe dummies, and the formwork was assembled in less time.”7 Sipes noted that in conversations regarding the concrete walls, Ando’sprimary focus was on the finish of the concrete. He wanted to achieve andmaintain a continuity of surface that minimized both pour and form panellines left by the formwork. Ando was not concerned over the type of ‘active’form ties specified or the use of the cosmetic form tie, only that what wasused would provide the diameter of the form tie hole he desired and thattheir spacing and arrangement was in keeping with his design intentions. It was during the initial construction phase of the Modern that the useof the cosmetic form tie was discussed as a viable option. During this time, Sipes was in consultation with PERI in the design and development of the Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramPatrick Doan 2 2Exterior Elevation – tapering lunette – Kimbell ArtMuseum 8Ibid. 9“Langen Foundation,” PERI-USA, accessedMarch 14, 2017. 10Gunderson, “Architectural Concrete,” 70. What Lies Beneath the Surface shop drawings for the formwork system. Ando was aware of and approvedthe use of cosmetic form ties.8 It should also be noted that the use of the cosmetic form tie is notunique to the Modern or Ando’s work. The Pulitzer Arts Foundation in St. Louis, Missouri completed in 2001 and the Langen Foundation in Neuss- Hombroich, Germany completed in 2004 are two examples of other buildingsof his that have integrated the use of the cosmetic form tie in the casting ofthe concrete walls. The PERI system was used in the forming of the concretewalls for these museums as well.9 Commenting on Ando’s use of the cosmetic form tie at the Modern, Fred Langford mused at how Kahn may have reacted to its consideration: One afternoon we were walking with Dr. Salk and his son through thecourtyard and talking about this very subject. "Well, we've got to plug thesethings with something unusual," and so the kid said, "How about gold?" Weused to repeat that story. To continue with what I learned today at the Mod- ern, I didn't know that every other row was a dummy set. We never used anydummies. Kahn would do back flips if you put a dummy in. He would say, “We'll find another way. Find another expression." If you don't need the tie inthere, then don't use it.”10 Kahn and the Kimbell Across the street at the Kimbell, a similar constructive tale pertaining to theexpression of structural verse formal expression was played out during thedesign of the north and south exterior elevations [ 2 ]. In recounting thedevelopment of these elevations, Marshall Meyers, Kahn’s project architectfor the Kimbell, explained that Kahn called for a piece of glass, calleda lunette, to be placed between the concrete cycloid shaped diaphragm (thethickened end of the concrete cycloid vault) and the travertine infill wall tomake a clear separation and distinction between the building’s structure andthe non-bearing walls. According to Komendant’s initial design, thediaphragm was to maintain a uniform depth of twelve inches. The glasslunette Kahn proposed was to maintain a uniform depth of six inches. As the project developed a structural revision to the diaphragm made byKomendant changed its depth so that only at the apex of the cycloid vault didthe diaphragm need to be thickened to twelve inches. The remainder of thediaphragm could taper in depth. Komendant took the position that this wasthe correct visual expression of these structural forces. Kahn saw this issuedifferently and was insistent that the diaphragm maintain its uniform depthof twelve inches. As Meyers points out, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramPatrick Doan 3 3Interior Elevation – tapering lunette – Kimbell ArtMuseum 11Marshall Meyers, “Making the Kimbell: A BriefMemoir,” in Louis I. Kahn: The Construction ofthe Kimbell Art Museum, ed. Luca Bellinelli( Milano: Italy Skira, 1999), 11. 12Ibid. What Lies Beneath the Surface “…to Kahn, this absolute expression of a minor structural condition was nothis inclination. He preferred to express the more general aspect of a structur- al member rather than every nuance. As an example, he would design can- tilevered concrete beams with a constant height for the full length rather thanreduce the beam’s section the farther it cantilevered.” 11 While Kahn was determined on changing Komendant’s mind, it wasKomendant who prevailed in the end. Responding to this new structural con- dition Kahn kept the glass lunette in place and allowed it to follow the taper- ing profile of the diaphragm. The lunette became the mediator between theformal expression of the non- bearing walls and the structural expression ofthe diaphragm [ 3 ]. Meyers noted that this type of detailing, which was sounlike Kahn, “generated great attention in the completed building and wasa superb demonstration of his artistry.”12 What this tale from the Kimbell helps to illustrate is that Ando is notalone in trying to manage and balance the challenges of technological andconstructive demands with structural and formal expression — a line that is(literally and metaphorically) not always so clearly or easily defined and ask- ing the questions: at what point in the architect’s decision making are certainarchitectural conditions selected to be expressed, concealed, or even engagedcosmetically? To what scale are these decisions scrutinized and acted upon? Mistaken Identity On the surface, the revelation of Ando’s use of the cosmetic form tie appearsto be at odds with a body of work that seems to favor tectonic expressiondemonstrated through the masterful use of exposed cast-in-place concrete. By allowing the form tie to become a ‘negotiable’ condition within the mak- ing of the wall brings this perceived tectonic position into question. Underly- ing Ando’s work might be an inherent preference for the (a)tectonic – a posi- tion that may have always been present yet overshadowed by his use ofexposed concrete. The concession of the form tie becomes a silent admittanceto the desire of maintaining and favoring surface over the ‘honesty’ of con- structive expression or technological advancements. In writing about architecture’s constructive nature, Ando is careful topoint out that it is the architect who must control how technology is consid- ered and folded into their work. A point he articulates in the following pas- sage from his essay, The Traces of Architectural Intentions: I believe it is important to be sensitive to the weight, hardness, and tex- ture of materials and to have an intuitive grasp on the technical limits in theirfabrication. Above all, the architect must define his own vision with respectto technology. Without precise individual aims, the architect will become Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramPatrick Doan 4 4Interior concrete wall – the Modern 13Tadao Ando, “The Traces of ArchitecturalIntentions,” in Tadao Ando: Complete Works, ed. Francesco Dal Co (London: Phaidon, 1995), 461. 14Tadao Ando, “From Self-Enclosed ModernArchitecture towards Universality,” 448. 15Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “cos- mos,” accessed February 10, 2017, http://www. oed.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/. What Lies Beneath the Surface subject to the economic logic and banal conventions that dominate technolo- gy. Technology is nothing more than knowledge. The architect’s intentionsand ideas control knowledge; these are more essential.” 13 Ando’s use and deep understanding of a select material palate, com- prised primarily of concrete and glass, helps to bring an acute awareness andfocus to his crafting of spatial conditions and building details. The orderingand rhythm of the panel impressions and form tie holes left in the concretewall establish a measured order and a scaled relationship of the formedspaces to the human body. The dense opaque boundaries that define theexterior walls provides a backdrop for an inward focused orchestration ofspatial relationships, sequences, and encounters. Walls of concrete and glassframe, bound, and filter, bringing into focus and intensifying the experienceof place through the lens of architectural space. The surface and order of thewall establishes a continuity of architectural thought Ando iteratively main- tains from one building to the next. It could be speculated that the opportu- nity to change both the formal and constructive composition of the wallthrough a technological advancement in formwork would compromise hislarger vision [ 4 ]. I attempt to use a modern material – concrete and, specifically, con- crete walls – in simplified forms to realize a kind of space that is possiblebecause I am Japanese. This rests on a simple aesthetic awareness cultivatedin me as a Japanese person. It seems to me that at present, concrete is themost suitable material for realizing spaces created by rays of sunlight. But theconcrete I employ does not have plastic rigidity or weight. Instead, it must behomogeneous and light and must create surfaces. When they agree with myaesthetic image, walls become abstract, are negated, and only the space theyenclose gives a sense of really existing. Under these conditions, volume andprojected light alone float into prominence as hints of the spatial composi- tion.”14 Seen in this light, the word cosmetic seems an apt way of describingAndo’s walls. While cosmetic deals with surface, its etymological roots arefound in cosmos – “an ordered and harmonious system of ideas, existences, etc., e.g. that which constitutes the sum- total of ‘experience.’” 15 His treat- ment of the wall surface begins to suggest a painterly sensibility where sur- face depth, color, geometry, and order define and govern the walls physicaland formal presence and attributes. Ando’s sensibilities could be compared tothose of the American artist, Donald Judd: There is also, of course wholeness and unity of Judd’s art itself, both inindividual pieces and in the entirety of the work. For Judd, art was a totality, and to be this it had to be clear, with things resolved, and put together ina clear and exact way. (He would be compulsive about detail, and I remember Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramPatrick Doan16William Agee, “Donald Judd in Retrospect: AnAppreciation,” in Donald Judd: Sculpture : Sep- tember 16 — October 15, 1994, The PaceGallery 32 East 57th Street NYC (New York: PaceWildenstein, 1994), p 9. 17Edward Ford, The Architectural Detail (NewYork: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011), 312. 18Peter Zumthor, Thinking Architecture / PeterZumthor, 2nd, expanded ed., tran. MaureenOberlin- Turner (essays 1988- 1996) and Cah- terine Schlebert (essays 1998–2004) (Boston: Birkhäuser, 2006), 15. What Lies Beneath the Surface trying to persuade him, to no avail, that it was probably impossible to joinone-ton slabs of concrete in the Marfa field without a seam showing.)” 16 Detailed Consideration Edward Ford writes in his book, The Architectural Detail, that, The good detail is not consistent, but non-conforming; not typical, butexceptional; not doctrinaire, but heretical; not the continuation of an idea, but its termination, and the beginning of another.” 17 What could be taken away from Ford’s words is that a condition such asthe cosmetic form tie can stand as a detailed counter point within an archi- tectural work, running contrary to building conventions and at times notbringing about a desired harmonic resolution. A dissonance emerges in theplay between the formal, constructive, and performative forces coupled witharchitectural desires and intent. It is in these detailed struggles where thearchitect’s true position is revealed. If Ando had not built next door to Kahn, perhaps this question sur- rounding his use of the cosmetic form tie would not resonant so deeply (atleast with this author) and might have otherwise been seen more as a con- struction anomaly in his other buildings. The initial knee-jerk reaction toblasphemy and deception especially in the presence of Kahn gives way toa surprisingly more empathic reading and consideration of its use. The cos- metic form tie is not a technicality, technological residue, or a victim of valueengineering or indifference. Rather its use is intentional and controlled; asserting a position rooted within an (a)tectonic expression of an envelopingspatial totality. For Ando the cosmetic form tie’s presence resonates at allscales; revealing that it does matter and is consequential — offering anotherlens in which to view and consider Ando’s work. Details express what the basic idea of the design requires at the relevantpoint in the object: belonging or separation, tension or lightness, friction, solidity, fragility…. Details, when they are successful, are not mere decora- tion. They do not distract or entertain. They lead to an understanding of thewhole of which they are an inherent part.”18 An Argument for MaintainingObsolete ArchitectureA Case Study Into theRelational Character ofTectonics and Program WhenTransforming an ExistingBuilding Anne Beim Magnus Reffs Kramhřft Line Kjćr Frederiksen Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen 1 1Left: Nauticon’s blue-toned glass facade andsignificantly shaped volumes towards the water. Right: Section of the concrete facade facing theneighboring buildings. © Trine Junker Rasmussen, Amalie Skjellerup Bang, Katrine Elbćk Ditlev. 1Arne Hři et al., eds., Klimavisioner for mod- ernismens bygningskultur: etageboligbe- byggelser 1930–1974, 1st ed. (Realdania, 2024). An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture Introduction This article addresses the growing problem that arises when recent historicalbuildings become obsolete. They should ideally be altered or refurbished tofulfill current needs to hinder new construction of the same scale on a givensite. But their original design often does not fit today's demands withoutrequiring major interventions and maybe unconventional workarounds asdeep retrofit. Both economically, sustainably, and architecturally, this cir- cumstance holds significant challenges, and potentially it can become anobstacle for adapting younger historical buildings for new purposes. Build- ings we may not have yet learned to ‘love’? The backdrop of the article partly relates to a problem statement createdfor the graduate course, Architectural research and innovation in present-dayconstruction, which is part of the fifth-year semester syllabus of the graduateprogram: Settlements, Ecology and Tectonics at the Royal Danish Academy. The course theme of 2024 addressed: Transformations of the valuable existing: Valuation, design strategies and construction solutions for the transformationof existing buildings. It included a highly relevant case study: Nauticon, whichis a relatively young, large-scale office building from the 1990s, situated inCopenhagen, that is planned to be demolished. Based on the findings discussed in the students' value assessmentreports, the article identifies and critically examines the main friction pointsbetween Nauticon's original and present program (intention of use) and itstectonic framework (cultural physical manifestation). The aim is to discussless destructive and more meaningful building practices. This article address- es ‘a new sort of problem’ — that concerns young, well-constructed buildingsthat, due to e.g. their original program, spatial organisation, and aestheticappearance, are being considered outdated or ‘worthless’, and therefore indanger of being demolished. Reports funded by the Danish philanthropicfoundation Realdania have concluded that modern office buildings withindustrialized construction systems typically lack recognition as valuablearchitectural heritage, raising questions about preserving unappreciatedbuildings of our recent past.1 The Nauticon building is owned by Danica Real Estate, who is amongDenmark's largest real estate investors, and until recently, it has been rentedout to changing renowned companies. The owner has seen a decreasinginterest in the building for several years and concludes that it simply does notalign with today’s functional, aesthetic, and technical preferences. Since thebuilding did not meet the contemporary standards sought by companiestoday, the owner first developed a refurbishment project and later a morecomprehensive transformation into a residential program. Both proposals Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen2Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), Climate Change 2023: SynthesisReport. Contribution of Working Groups I, IIand III to the Sixth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. H. Lee and J. Romero (Geneva: IPCC, 2023), 45 3Leonora Eberhardt et al., Klimapotentialet vedrenovering kontra nedrivning med nybyg, 1sted. (BUILD, Aalborg Universitet, 2022), 5–6 4Stefan Breitling and Johannes Cramer, Archi- tecture in Existing Fabric: Planning, Design, Building, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012) 5Sally Stone, UnDoing Buildings: AdaptiveReuse and Cultural Memory (Routledge, Taylorand Francis Group, 2020), 169 An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture were ruled out because they failed to create the ‘product’ that the ownermeant could serve as a realistic business case. Adaptive reuse and transformation of existing buildings are importantarchitectural strategies for reducing the building industry's environmentalimpact (GhG) by decreasing the demand for new construction. 2 Thus, repro- gramming existing structures for reuse and enabling maintain their relevanceis arguably a less resource-intensive intervention than demolition for newconstruction. 3 However, existing structures hold inherent tectonic featuresbased on their original programming that may be difficult to repurpose. 4The material reality is already defined in the existing building fabric thatmust be respected as a particular language and culture of construction. Thisthoughtful recognition of the existing preconditions can not only be used torestore historical building practices but can also be used to build narrativesfor renewed relevance. 5 Research Question When critically addressing the problem area that is presented in the intro- duction of the article, it leads to the following research question: What are the tectonic rules and principles that either hinder or supporttransformation of a building's program? Thus, the tension between tectonics and the program described above formsthe core of the case study examining Nauticon, which represents a globalcommercial building typology often subjected to demolition. Once the build- ing complex was conceived as a prestigious ‘architecturally designed head- quarters’, symbolizing a multinational corporation’s future vision and marketposition, whereas today it fails to be relevant and is instead seen as an unat- tractive, obsolete structure, difficult to adapt for new purposes. Theory and Research Approach In this section, the theoretical framework of the article is presented togetherwith the methods used to critically discuss why/how this rather young build- ing now faces potential demolition rather than being reused. Theoretical Position Circular sustainability theory and scientific data are core elements of thestudy of this article. Reusing existing structures as an answer to Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen6IPCC, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report 7Buildings Performance Institute Europe(BPIE), Prioritising Existing Buildings for Peo- ple and Climate: Sufficiency as a Strategy toAddress the Housing Crisis, Achieve ClimateTargets and Protect Resources, ed. CarolineMilne et al. (Brussels: BPIE, 2024), 15 8Francesca Lanz and John Pendlebury, "Adap- tive Reuse: A Critical Review", The Journal ofArchitecture 27, nos. 2–3 (2022), 441–62 9Sole Bugge Mřller, “Hvad Er Bedst for Klimaet– Renovering Eller Nedrivning?,” Www.dtu.dk, Bćredygtigt Byggeri, DTU (blog), n.d. 10Stephen Cairns and Jane Jacobs, BuildingsMust Die — A Perverse View of Architecture( MIT press, 2014), 103 11Anette Hartung, “Frygt for Bryggens Fremtid,” Ingeniřren, February 2, 1996, https://ing.dk/artikel/frygt-bryggens-fremtid 12Morten Stenak, ed., SAVE: kortlćgning og reg- istrering af bymiljřers og bygningers bevar- ingsvćrdi, [Revised version], (Copenhagen, Kulturarvsstyrelsen, 2011) An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture environmental impacts and resource scarcity is a central strategy to reachinternational climate targets. 6 But, adopting sufficiency as a strategy couldequally lower resource consumption and address society's social implicationsby utilizing the existing square meters wisely and finding suitable functionsfor the buildings that are already there.7 This focus on preventing demolition and reusing valuable materials andstructures aligns with the objectives of ‘adaptive reuse theory’, where resusci- tation of obsolete buildings and prolongation of the user value and identityare central themes. Buildings have historically been considered as evolvingentities rather than static monuments. Europeans traditionally approachedstructures with pragmatic adaptability, continuously modifying buildings tomeet changing needs.8 Moreover, pre-industrial building practices relied onfew materials joined in simple ways, enabling easy dismantling, reconfigura- tion, and reuse. But modern construction has abandoned this evolutionaryapproach for the benefit of economic efficiency, which has created buildingsystems that are fast to construct but resistant to modification. 9 Also, indus- trialized systems encourage designing buildings as ‘completed’ objects withfixed programmatic requirements. The shift moved modernism away fromviewing buildings as continuously developing physical necessities towardtreating them as temporally bound, unchangeable structures. This notion of permanence is challenged by Stephen Cairns and Jane M. Jacobs in Buildings Must Die, which addresses the natalistic tendencies inmodern architecture of praising what is being created. The authors argue forrecalibrating our understanding of buildings as finite entities by incorporat- ing their life cycles of decay and death into architectural thinking. Theyexplain how buildings become obsolete when they lose “…value, sometimesthrough physical deterioration but often as a consequence of newer or betteralternatives becoming available," emphasizing that obsolete buildings becomestructures that are "in place but out of time”.10 As a ‘classic’ office building typology of the 1990s, Nauticon exemplifiesthese structures often subjected to obsolescence — not primarily due to poorphysical conditions, but because they have fallen ‘out of time’ and lost valuedue to their ‘outdated looks’, lack of flexibility in regard of reprogramming, and general negative association with industrialized construction systems. These types of buildings are not celebrated as central parts of our commoncultural heritage and have been highly criticized within the professionalarchitectural community. 11Also, the formal system for measuring preservation value in Denmark — theSAVE method — is only just beginning to include buildings from the periodbetween 1970 to 2000,12 but still not embracing them as genuine cultur- al heritage. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen13Mari Hvattum, Style and Solitude: The Historyof an Architectural Problem (The MIT Press, 2023). 235 and 238 14Heinrich Hübsch, In What Style Should WeBuild? The German Debate on ArchitecturalStyle, ed. Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolf- gang Herrmann, Texts & Documents (GettyCenter for the History of Art and the Humani- ties; Distributed by the University of ChicagoPress, 1992). 15Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies inTectonic Culture: The Poetics of Constructionin Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architec- ture, with Graham Foundation for AdvancedStudies in the Fine Arts (MIT Press, 1995). 16David Leatherbarrow, The Roots of Architec- tural Invention: Site, Enclosure, Materials, RESMonographs on Anthropology and Aesthetics( Cambridge University Press, 1993). MohsenMostafavi and David Leatherbarrow, OnWeathering: The Life of Buildings in Time (MITPress, 1993). 17James Strike, Construction into Design: TheInfluence of New Methods of Construction onArchitectural Design 1690- 1990, 1. publ. (But- terworth Architecture, 1991). 18Liliane Wong, Adaptive Reuse: Extending theLives of Buildings (Birkhäuser, 2017), 38 An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture When looking at the Nauticon building, its age is easily narrowed to a periodbetween the late 80s and early 90s due to its corporate architectural style andbold construction features. But architectural style is about more than visualappearance. As Mari Hvattum has stated in her book Style and Solitude, styleis perceived “…not (only) as a representation of the zeitgeist, but as ongoingnegotiations of the historicity and agency of architecture’s material andmotifs.”13 The appearance is deeply connected to historical context, culturalvalues, expressive intent, and the relationship between form and function. Hvattum builds upon Gottfried Sempers' theory of style as an articulationand artistic processing of a basic idea and “…all intrinsic and extrinsic coeffi- cients that modify the embodiment of the theme in a work of art.”14 This aligns with ideas proposed by important tectonic thinkers andarchitectural historians as Kenneth Frampton, David Leatherbarrow, andJames Strike, who in each their way, understand buildings as correlationsbetween different factors, both physical, systemic, societal, and cultural. In Studies in Tectonic Cultures, Frampton notes that architecture is notonly a ‘visual phenomenon’, but a tactile tectonic practice, where thebuilding's appearance derives from its construction and materials. Framptonsees it closely related to the characteristics of a place, such as topography, cli- mate, traditional construction practices, local materials, and crafts.15Leatherbarrow brings a clear phenomenological perspective into the percep- tion of architecture when analyzing its constitutional parts in his books, suchas topography, atmosphere and time.16 Finally, Strike offers an alternativehistorical account of modern architecture (1690 — 1990), when describingthe evolutionary changes in architectural design practice through ongoinginnovations in building technology, construction and production of buildingmaterials. 17 Specific circumstances and paradigms point to specific solutions andresults. So, we need to understand the aforementioned correlations and hier- archies to be able to grasp the fundamental idea and historical/ cultural valueof existing buildings. As Liliane Wong states: “Interventions to existing build- ings and structures, too, begin with an understanding of order.”18 Therefore, tobe able to work with these complex relationships, it is necessary to under- stand the priorities embedded in the different layers, hierarchies, and entitiesof the building. Research Approach Based on a fundamental tectonic analysis, the article approaches the Nauti- con building, both theoretically and methodically, at three differentlevels/ scales: context, building body, and details. This in order to interpret Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen 2 2Nauticon’s contrasting facades and the newdeveloped residential area behind. © Martin Toft Burchardi Bendtsen. Photo notedited and downloaded from https://www.arkitekturbilleder.dk/bygning/nauticon. 19Leatherbarrow, The Roots of Architectur- al Invention 20Kieler Architects, “Nauticon” (Kieler Archi- tects, n.d.), https://kielerarchitects.dk/referencer. An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture their correlations and to get closer to the building’s essence and inherentmeaning. The three levels refer to Leatherbarrow’s definitions Site, Enclosure, and Material as fundamentals in architectural design practice, which he pro- poses as a concrete theoretical framework in The Roots of Architectural Inven- tion. This article employs the same tectonic framing to analyse and dissectthe building, ensuring a comprehensive review of all three levels. Leatherbar- row argues that neither style nor form should be dominant design parame- ters. Instead, how a building relates to the place/site and creates spatial expe- rience through specific use of materials are important to integrate by thor- ough analysis. In his view buildings are more than just a passive background— they are active ‘participants’ in their specific context. 19 Secondly, the student’s value assessment studies and comprehensivetransformation proposals generated during the graduate course have servedas valuable data for the research, along with an evaluative questionnaire ofthe process. Danica Real Estate has contributed to the course by providingthorough information, stating their view on market demands and their chal- lenges adapting the building for new purposes. As an additional source, theinvolved architect, Henning Larsen, has contributed with practice- based andproject-specific knowledge to broaden the understanding of the process andits complexities. We have circumvented the contested style of Nauticon, looking at the con- stituent elements instead to familiarize ourselves with the potentials of whatalready exists. By identifying the friction and barriers for both the originalversion of the building and present-day reality, the hypothesis is that it willinform the adaptation for future use of the building and its anchoring atthe site. Context and Background of the Case To test the tectonic theory approach that frames the analysis of the paper — the Nauticon building acts as a case study. Nauticon is a large office buildingof a total of 25.000 m˛20 developed in 1989–90 by the pension fund Skandia( today Danica Real Estate). It was designed by the Danish architecturaloffice, Kieler Architects. Located in a former industrial harbor district, thebuilding complex heralded a new era of progress following Copenhagen city’sstruggle with depopulation, unemployment, and economic decline duringthe 1980s The bold architectural expression clearly reflects its historical origin, yetthe building now faces demolition because renovation and transformationattempts hold too many barriers, creating an economic burden compared tothe owner's level of ambition. Over the past 5 years, Danica Real Estate has Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture explored various reuse strategies with consultants to meet market demands, including renovation proposals by Erik architects and adaptive reuse plans bythe architectural offices Over Byen and Henning Larsen. A comprehensiveresource mapping was conducted by engineering firm Sřren Jensen anddemolition company Tscherning, creating a catalogue of material circularitypotentials. Despite these efforts, Nauticon still exemplifies the challengesfaced by similar buildings — structures that are not particularly old but toodifficult to adapt to changing times and present legislation. Prominent tenants have occupied the building, such as the Swedish tele- company Ericsson, the Danish dairy giant Arla, and the Danish Tax Authori- ties. The interior has been refurbished according to the changing needs ofspecific functional and aesthetic preferences of each company. But the exteri- or has kept its original state for the past three decades, and unlike many oth- er buildings, it represents a clear symbol of a special time in architectural his- tory. In general, this circumstance raises interesting arguments for maintain- ing newer historic buildings. Analysis of the Case Three Interrelated Levels This article identifies and analyses examples of friction points arisingbetween programmatic requirements and tectonic expression across threeinterrelated levels, while considering how regulatory frameworks influenceNauticon's architectural development. By looking at the relations between I. Context and Building Body, II. Building Body and Floor Plan, and III. Materi- als and Construction Details, the intention is to highlight challenges andpotentials that are found when looking closely at the different scales. The Nauticon Building The Nauticon building presents itself as a strictly conceptual and monumen- tal structure positioned on the edge of the water basin. The building complexfeatures four 5-story Y-shaped volumes in a symmetrical layout connected bythree transparent entrance staircases. While the facade around the opencourtyard towards the waterfront is dominated by blue-coated reflectiveglass, the rest of the exterior building exposes prefabricated, concrete ele- ments. The heavy concrete building masses stretch in multiple directions, creating a deliberate material contrast with the sharply defined inner facade. This juxtaposition establishes a clear architectural hierarchy that boldly com- municates the original design intentions. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen21Oxford English Dictionnary, “Context,” https:// www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=context&tl=true. June 22, 2025 22Merriam- Webster, “Context,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context. June22, 2025 23Kenneth Frampton, "Towards a CriticalRegionalism: Six Points for an Architecture ofResistance". In: The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays onPostmodern Culture, ed. Hal Foster, 1st ed. (Port Townsend, Wash: Bay Press, 1983), 21 An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture The structure is constructed with load-bearing sandwich elements and hol- low-core concrete slabs spanning between the facade and the row of concretecolumns and cores. This provides open floor plans that allow flexible spatialarrangements and different uses of spaces. As one of Denmark's first build- ings designed using fully digital CAD programs, Nauticon represents a sig- nificant technological advancement in construction practice and celebratesthe era's growing embrace of digital design tools. The Continued Life of the Building Danica Real Estate has struggled to attract tenants for several years. Theystate that companies who are looking for a place to lease find the buildingunappealing, as tenants need to see their corporate image reflected in theirworkspace. This includes both aesthetic considerations and the growingimportance of ‘green assets’ — organizations increasingly prioritize environ- mental credentials due to public attention and policy pressures. For years, Nauticon's owner has pursued various repurposing strategies: an expensiveretrofit plan, a circulation strategy involving only interior surface removal, and finally a radical conversion project that proved too challenging. Alltogether the barriers seem to have overruled the advantages when looking atthe way the owner views and manages the building property. I. The Context and Building Body The term ‘context’ originates from the Latin word contextus (con=together, texere=weave), meaning ‘a joining together’ or ‘to weave together’. 21 Theword refers to the circumstances or interrelated conditions in which some- thing occurs, and which help to give it meaning. 22 Through an architecturallens, it is therefore natural to consider the concept as an interweaving of boththe influences from the reality, the historical era we are part of, and the localphysical circumstances that are created by the building/place itself. Frampton assigns the concept of context and place a central signifi- cance, understood through the notion of ‘Critical Regionalism’: “It is the aimof critical regionalism to mediate the impact of universal civilization with ele- ments derived indirectly from the peculiarities of a particular place.”23 He seescontext as a necessary counterpart to the placelessness and loss of identitythat characterizes modernism and the ’international style’. He argues thatplace is about anchoring architecture in sensory and cultural context, asa resistance against global homogenization and generic architecture. Also, heemphasizes that tectonics must be sensitive to the cultural and physical Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen 3 3Left: Nauticon’s characteristic Y-shaped volumesforming inner courtyards that are facing towardsthe water basins of the harbour. © Magnus BaarupNoe, Carl Emil Haslev and Mads ChristianHvidberg. Right: Section of the building volume’s 5floors, highlighting the two different facades andthe row of columns © Mads Buus Sřrensen andSylvester Bajda. 24Frampton and Cava, Studies in Tecton- ic Culture 25Leatherbarrow, The Roots of ArchitecturalInvention. 26Ibid, p. 28 27Jesper Engelmark, "Dansk byggeskik: etage- byggeriet gennem 150 ĺr", 2nd ed. (Herlev: Dansk Byggeskik.dk, 2014). An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture context of a place to create meaningful, identity- forming, and resilient build- ings.24 The Locus of Site and Market-Driven Thinking This understanding of context is a prerequisite for the notion 'Site' thatLeatherbarrow discusses as one of the fundamental conditions for goodarchitecture. Leatherbarrow argues that architecture always exists in a specif- ic context – that is, in a particular place, which is both physically and cultur- ally conditioned. The building must relate to and be in dialogue with thisplace, which makes architecture more than just an object, but also part ofa larger environment, landscape, or urban space.25 As a pioneering building in the industrial area of Copenhagen SouthHarbor, Nauticon turns its heavy concrete back on the dirty industrial areaand visually points its attention (glass facades) to the waterfront. The build- ing closes in on itself, not relating to the prerequisites of place thus visibilityfrom one of the city’s major roads seems prioritized over neighboringengagement. In the transformed area, this closed appearance is a significantproblem for interaction with the present local community and emphasizesthat Nauticon has a static nature, not able to keep up with time. With the city's growing wealth and the real estate development of for- mer industrial areas along the waterfront, this site has become increasinglyattractive to investors. It gives the owner an economic incentive to utilize thepolitically adopted building coverage ratio of the site, stated in the localmunicipal plans, and build more efficient square meters than the existingbuilding can provide. From a business case perspective, it is thus more prof- itable for the owner to demolish and construct a new building. AsLeatherbarrow states, site location is critically defined by land ownership andmarket value — considered as a commodity — but these economic terms pre- vent understanding of the place's enduring qualities, as they prioritize trans- ferability over architectural uniqueness. 26 This is a significant systemic bar- rier to the preservation of existing structures at the site. The Industrial Practice and Digital Fascination Nauticon aligns with the building practices of its time, where industriallyprefabricated concrete elements have been predominant in Denmark sincethe 1960s and remain so to this day.27 The sharply cut volumes have both inplan and facade postmodernist features and almost baroque elements, whichshow in the distinct symmetrical design and angled volumes, and the court- yards' layout with diagonally oriented basins and bridges. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen 4 4Left: Picture showing one of the floors with thetriangular service core in the center. Right: Pictureof one of the top floors, with a higher slopedceiling and skylight. Both pictures are taken of thebuilding in the state of a soft strip of materials andwith the glazed facade on the right side. © LineKjćr Frederiksen. 28Byggeriets Videoproduktion Danmark Bygger— Varieret, Rationelt, Kvalitetsbyggeri (film), produced by Per Kjćrbye et al. (Denmark, Byggestyrelsen, 1990). 29European Commission, The European GreenDeal: Striving to Be the First Climate- NeutralContinent, European Commission, accessedJune 2025, https://www.commission.europa.eu 30Buildings Performance Institute Europe(BPIE), Prioritising Existing Buildings for Peo- ple and Climate: Sufficiency as a Strategy toAddress the Housing Crisis, Achieve ClimateTargets and Protect Resources (Brussels: BPIE, October 25, 2024) 31Carsten Falk Hansen and Marie LouiseHansen, Bygningsreglement 2018 (BR 18) (Her- lev, Byggecentrum, 2018). An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture The Y-shaped blocks are contextless, independent volumes that prioritizespatial programming and optimal plan efficiency over site-specific ‘response’. According to the research film ‘Denmark builds — varied, rational, qualityconstruction’. 28 These blocks could be placed and combined in various con- figurations, making them products of the period's focus on industrial massproduction and the fascination of the possibilities of the digital tools, ratherthan the result of their specific location. The design does not respond to theactual physical reality, such as orientation according to daylight, but ratherseeks to prioritize the program and stick to the formal concept. Thisapproach reflects an introspective, object-oriented architectural stance thatprimarily relates to its formal logic, rather than engaging with itssurroundings—a detachment that has become even more pronounced as theneighboring industrial area has transformed into a residential district. The era’s material and structural choices focused on an emerging efficiencythrough prefabrication and quick assembly. The heavy materials were chosenfor their robust characteristics and ability to withstand heavy loads with min- imal maintenance. The building still stands, visually tired but not worn out. Failures occur mainly at joints where sealants have deteriorated, pointing tothe importance of ongoing maintenance. Complex custom solutions like theblue-toned in-situ glass facade are challenging to repair since they weren'tdesigned for disassembly and replacement. This reveals that future repairsweren't in focus, but instead a belief that materials and construction weredurable and could last virtually indefinitely. The Reality for Obsolete Buildings In an attempt to keep up with demand and social development, Nauticon'sowner has invested in projects designed to alter both the building's proper- ties, appearance, and use. This aligns with the EU's strategies for reducingenergy consumption in the building stock, which aims to double renovationrates by 203029 as well as thinking about sufficiency in the use of the struc- ture.30 This promotes refurbishment interventions, such as upgrading withfurther insulation or replacement of windows to lower energy costs. But when buildings as Nauticon need to undergo program changes – from commercial to residential or industrial to office – they must meet cur- rent building regulations for fire, accessibility, daylight, energy, statics, etc. that differ significantly from those when the building was constructed. 31And as Danish society has prioritized welfare and livability, municipal strate- gies have increased requirements for citizen- oriented functionalities since Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen 5 5Limited daylight and visual connection to theoutside. Left: Window in concrete facade. © Amalie Westh Bennetzen. Right: Window in glazedfacade with its dominant horizontal lintel. © Magnus Reffs Kramhřft 32Gottfried Semper and Harry Francis Mall- grave, The Four Elements of Architecture andOther Writings, First paperback edition, trans. Wolfgang Herrmann, RES Monographs inAnthropology and Aesthetics (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2010), 103 33Leatherbarrow, The Roots of ArchitecturalInvention, 132 An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture enges, as demands for recreational areas, bike storage, and depositories, though well-intentioned for resident wellbeing, can be difficult to integrateon constrained sites. While these standards naturally apply to new construc- tion, they are also imposed on existing buildings when transformed, creatingpotential barriers for the preservation and reuse of the building body. II. The Building Body and Floor Plan Broadening the Scope of Form and Function In architectural theory, the notion of architecture's constituent elements iswell established, particularly in classical tectonic theory as The Four Elementsof Architecture by Gottfried Semper. 32In this, Semper describes architecture's primordial elements as mound, hearth, roof, and enclosures. Each element is understood as related to a craftand to materials that provide a certain tectonic logic to the design of eachindividual element, as well as the tectonics of the elements in coherence. Sempers’ almost anthropological analysis of the primordial hut as an archi- tectural object, was a reaction to the aesthetic focus on styles of the time. With reference to Semper, Leatherbarrow argues for questioning “…a specificgeometry of purpose, or spatial configuration of a plot, without assuming theantecedent status of either function or form.” as “…the radical basis for fullunderstanding of architectural enclosure.” 33 Questioning the correlation between Nauticon’s enclosure and floorplan, as proponents for form, is carried out in the following. The Enclosure and The Plan It is in the Y-shaped building blocks and in the contrast between the heavystructural concrete facade and the sharpness of the glazed facades, that wefind the main architectural statements of the enclosure. As previously men- tioned, these geometric volumes seem to be the contextless consequence ofdesigning universal building blocks with the specific purpose of being anoffice building. As an office building, this layout almost urges a corporateorganisation to divide vertically in the four blocks and horizontally through- out the Y-shaped floor plans, even with the possibility of organising smallerdivisions within each ‘leg’ of the Ys. The Y-shape gives three office corridorswith a triangular service core in the center. Originally, Nauticon was intend- ed for one single company who had ownership of the whole building. Overtime, ownership changed, and Nauticon began housing several smaller com- panies. The current situation with the owner, a pension fund obliged to make Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen34Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, trans. Frederick Etchells (Holt, Rinehart andWinston, 1985), 2 35Byggeriets Videoproduktion, Danmark Bygger— Varieret, Rationelt, Kvalitetsbyggeri An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture profitable choices on behalf of its members, unsuccessfully testing the feasi- bility of transforming Nauticon to accommodate a new program that is hous- ing — points to questioning the plan in relation to the program. As previously described, the tectonic language of Nauticons’ constituentelements is very much characterized by the industrial logic of its time. Thegeometric shape of the Y very much defines the bodily experience of theenclosure. The symmetrical layout of the four blocks, together with the sym- metries of each open floor plan, makes for a mazelike — even disorientating— experience of moving around between the floors and the blocks. Every- thing seems to be the same, except for the view out of the windows. For thedesign of Nauticon, there seems to have been a trust in Le Corbusier’s mod- ernist argument: “The Plan is the generator. Without a plan, you have lack oforder, and willfullness. The Plan holds in itself the essence of sensation. Thegreat problem of to-morrow, dictated by collective necessities, put the questionof “plan” in a new form. Modern life demands, and is waiting for, a new kind ofplan, both for the house and for the city.”34 This specific Y-shaped plan takes great measures to adapt to a differentprogram than what was originally intended. This indicates that Nauticonprobably never was intended to accommodate any other program thanoffices. Though in a different way than intended, Le Corbusier is right in thatthe great problem of tomorrow puts the question of ‘plan’ in a new form. From the case of Nauticon it can be argued that the ‘new form of plan’ shouldbe infused with the geometry of purpose, as Leatherbarrow puts it. In thesense that designing purposeful geometries for the future instead of fora function of today, could make way for better adaptable buildings. Facades and Daylight In the short film, previously mentioned, Nauticon figures as a prominentexample of the possibilities of the time. It is explained that variation andquality were key parameters in prefab construction. 35 The four blocks areconnected by three staircases serving as entrances and the configuration ofthe blocks next to each other is a rational way of securing daylight. The com- position of facade elements is underlined by vertical and horizontal joints, grooves and protrusions in the facades. The facades facing out towards theneighboring buildings and roads have smaller square windows that appear asa continuous vertical band following the outer facade, with a slight differenti- ation of what looks like concrete posts visible in the facade in the lowertwo floors. The facades facing the courtyard look like curtain walls of glass, witha spatial protrusion on the ground floor. However, from inside the building, Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture it becomes clear that the facades are structural concrete elements clad in glasspanels. The architectural quality of these divergent experiences of the facadesfrom inside and outside of the building remains unclear. The depth of thebuilding volumes makes for grand open spaces, which have been divided intosmaller office units, with corridors in the center of the’ legs’ of the Ys. Thismeans that most office units have had daylight from only one side. The win- dows on the glazed facade are placed at a height suitable for sitting at a deskto be able to look out. When standing up there is a beam exactly at eye level. One-sided daylight and low windows are not necessarily a problem for com- mercial buildings, but when adapting to residential use, these issues arounddaylight and views from windows constitute complications. Therefore, effortsmade by the building owner to adapt Nauticon into an apartment complexhas focused on adapting the facade. However, because the facades are struc- tural, comprehensive alterations to the facades are needed to comply withcurrent regulation on adequate daylight in residential space. These points of friction between the program manifested in the buildingbody and floor plan, show that following the tectonic logic of the building, Nauticon either should become an experiment of uniting the existing build- ing codes and the need for adaptability — or Nauticon should remain in useas an office building. Perhaps the radical approach for these types of build- ings should be to ask every singular building what it wants to be, instead oftrying to make it into something it never can become. This approach, howev- er, leads to a broader discussion on the grammar of programming the city. Could we succumb to losing control over a few of the existing buildings, where the inherent tectonics assume control? III. Materials and Construction Details The Tectonic Problem of Post Modernism At first glance, the Nauticon building does not give an impression of havinghigh ambitions regarding architectural detailing — neither as for elaboratetectonic principles — nor regarding referring to any sort of regional, culturalor historical character traits. At all levels the aesthetic appearance of thebuilding complex signals a high degree of architectural autonomy, showing ina series of formalistic design features. It shows in the symmetrical uniformgeometries, repetition of large-scale building components, distinct markersexemplified in the steel covered stairway towers, and a clearly stated colorscheme. A similar design approach can be found in the character and tactilesense of the few dominating materials applied, e.g. the smooth concrete surf- Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen 6 6The two most common facade elements ofNauticon. Left: the load-bearing precast concretesandwich panel with separate windows. Right: theload-bearing precast concrete panel with onehorizontal window. © Mads Buus Sřrensen, Sylvester Bajda 36Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture: A critical history, (London: Thames & Hudson, 1980), 305 37Ibid, 307 An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture aces, the cobalt blue reflecting glass panes, and the massive black windowframes that frame the apertures. Kenneth Frampton has eloquently nailed the overall problems that char- acterizes this era in architectural history, emphasizing the lack of architectur- al contextual awareness at all levels. In his pivotal book, Modern Architecture: A critical history, he states: “... [Post Modernism] cannot be defined in terms of a specific set ofstylistic and ideological characteristics, the fact that it tends to proclaimits legitimacy in exclusively formal - not to say superficial - terms, ratherthan in terms of constructional, organizational or socio-culturalconsideration …already separates it, as a modus operandi, from thearchitectural production of the third quarter of the century.”36 And he continues: Post Modernism reduces architecture to a condition in which the ‘packagedeal’ arranged by the builder/developer determines the carcass and theessential substance of the work, while the architect is reduced tocontributing to a suitably seductive mask. This is the predominantsituation in city centre development in America [Europe] today, where … [buildings] are either reduced to the ‘silence’ of their totally glazed, reflective envelopes or alternatively dressed in devalued historicaltrappings of one kind or the other.”37 These critical circumstances that defined the architectural era of the 1980ssuggest that design proposals, which could have embraced durable tectonicprinciples, may have been suppressed for the benefit of formalistic aestheticgestures. Furthermore, the architectural design primarily was ruled by thecommercial interests of the developers and investors. This also appears to bethe case in the Nauticon building. Therefore, it is interesting to examine howthe materials play a role regarding the formalistic design and the technicaldetails. This will be addressed in the following. The Paradox of the Load-bearing Concrete Façade Kieler Architects may have accepted the client’s commercial interests andmay have let them affect the architectural design?! Upon closer examinationof Nauticon’s construction details, it becomes evident that the building'sstructural design is tailored to the specific program of the first tenant, thatwas to provide a ‘modern office space’ which offered efficient workspace. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen38James Strike, Construction into Design. (1. publ. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1991).155–156 39Line Kjćr Frederiksen, "Adskillelsens Tektonik— Cirkulćre principper undersřgt i to nutidi- ge byggesystemer", (PhD diss., Copenhagen: Center for Industrialized Architecture, RoyalDanish Academy, 2024). 70–71 40Casper Řstergaard, Heidi Aistrup Christensen, and Gitte Gylling Olesen, eds., Analyse afdesign for adskillelse, Inspirationskatalog, (Křbenhavn: COWI & Social- ogByggestyrelsen, 2024), 26–29 An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture In general, the structural elements and construction joints hold physicaldimensions that have been ‘optimized’ to serve the maximum functionality ofthe building. This shows in heavy load-bearing pillars and beams, the largespan deck elements, and the bespoke steel frames holding the glass facade. However, the applied construction solutions do not allow (easily) for anysubsequent adaptations or changes, since major interventions will be bothtechnically challenging and financially expensive. As an example, the load-bearing precast concrete facades are difficult tochange e.g. cut open or remove, because in addition to serving as the build- ing skin they form the structural skeleton. Moreover, the concrete elementsare reinforced with steel rods above and around the edges of the windows toa degree, where creating larger openings for improving the daylight condi- tions will be technically difficult. Even minor interventions in the facade will inevitably challenge thebuilding's structural system since the joining of the concrete elements is fixedby use of cast concrete. So, the structural system itself is a problem regardingdisassembly and alterations, since large precast concrete panels tend to col- lect and accentuate any differential movement at the joints between the pan- els and therefore must be fastened. 38 Up until present time it has been themost applied method. So, the core idea of the original program ‘to createopen, flexible floor plans,’ with a specially designed load-bearing buildingsystem becomes more of a barrier than a benefit when the building mustbe repurposed. The Trouble of Separating Layers In present day analysis of reuse and recycling of construction materials, har- vested from existing buildings, the ‘reversibility ‘of construction solutions iscentral. This means being able to separate the different materials, withoutdestructing them and to be able to sort them into pure material fractions. 39It helps to gain the highest possible value embedded in the materials andcomponents. 40 That includes — carbon, material uniqueness and/or cultur- al heritage. Nevertheless, ‘design for disassembly’ was not thought of at the timewhen the Nauticon building was designed, rather on the contrary. To createrobust constructions and enable efficiency in the processes of assembly, adhesives have been extensively used to join and glue the building compo- nents together. The dark red-brown tropical wood parquet floors can serve as an exam- ple having been glued to the concrete floor deck with a tar-based adhesive. Attempting to dismantle the floorboards proves very demanding — removing Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen41Ibid, p. 127. An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture the adhesive is difficult, making reuse of the wood challenging. This is bothbecause the wooden bars cannot be applied until fully cleaned, because theadhesive is suspected of containing harmful substances that could spreadwhen exposed. This example demonstrates how building layers are lockedtogether, depending on each other, and tied to their specific location in con- struction. Beyond physical constraints, materials also become systemicallylocked within linear economic flows. Chemical adhesives and sealants conta- minate materials, preventing immediate reintegration into circular systems. Valuable wooden flooring — now impossible to source due to deforesta- tion regulations — loses its resource value through construction methodsthat preclude reuse. CO2 reductions up to 78 percent are being missed whennot being able to reuse wooden boards.41 Conclusion Context and Prerequisites are Essential The conclusion suggests that transforming the existing fabric into somethinguseful and meaningful must necessarily relate very closely to the alreadyexisting conditions and the material reality that exists on site. The building’suse-driven program does hold challenges when searching for new purposes, but the main obstacle to tackle and handle is the very rigid constructiontechnique, which is difficult and costly to alter, and a barrier to successfulcircular reuse. Lack of contextual connection makes it difficult to anchora reused building in a place and local community, yet this anchoring is cru- cial for successful transformation. Relating to the site and embracing theoriginal design intent helps to create relevance in adaptive reuse, supportingthe change of mindset. Market and Legislation Must Change Focus Today's financial reality makes demolishing buildings and profiting fromnew construction advantageous. New economic incentives are essential tomake preserving and transforming buildings the norm. Existing buildingsshould not meet the same requirements and standards as contemporary newconstruction. This pressures processes, creates focus on responsibility alloca- tion, and ultimately hinders transformations—and thus preservation. Authorities need new rules to lean on. Separate regulations that don't largelyequate old with new, but tailor requirements to specific situations and helpsupport each building's potential. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture Buildings Should Dictate Future Use Forcing new programs into buildings not designed for them becomes unnec- essarily extensive and expensive. Instead, aligning programs with existingbuildings’ tectonic language minimizes necessary extensive alterations. Thisreduced intervention scope—particularly for structural systems—is essentialfor minimizing environmental impact, waste generation, and virgin materialconsumption. Understanding a building's history, fundamental concept, andbuilding system should guide future programming. This approach limitsinterventions and costs while continuing the architectural legacy. Deeperunderstanding of a building's history, design intent, and construction princi- ples enables more appropriate functional adaptations. Creating new relevancein existing structures is critical for preserving building resources in place— without it, buildings lose meaning, deteriorate, and face demolition. A Critical Reflection on Tectonic Barriers and Opportunities Today, the Nauticon building appears as a contextless and introspectiveresult, not designed to fit its surroundings, but from a formalistic, object-ori- ented idea of the universal optimum. The building was conceived as the ‘con- struction of the future’, but it quickly became outdated, not corresponding tosociety's changing needs, and not adaptable to functional or aesthetic expec- tations. The building's rigid construction creates clear tectonic and systemicbarriers to transformations generated by new programs. The building itselfseems to suggest it should remain an office building. And perhaps limitingthe expectations to the profit could open up for other user groups, embracingthe specific architectural appearance of the building. Economy-thinking and Legislation Obstructs It is evident how market thinking runs the development of buildings andtends to overrule other priorities. This creates ‘safe’, generic architecturalresults rather than unique, relevant, and intriguing ones. Also, it promotesdemolition because the economic value of the site must be utilised to themaximum for the owner. However, this presents an obvious opportunity forregulations and requirements to support an alternative approach that favorsbuilding reuse, and by that limiting the costs, instead of hindering it. LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) legislation for new buildings in Denmark, whichbecame a regulatory requirement on January 1st, 2023, is already affectingour mindset and design approach, signaling a shift toward more sustainableconstruction practices that could eventually rebalance these economic Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture priorities. These regulations have already been tightened by July 1st, 2025, demonstrating the increasing focus on environmental accountability. Today’s reality of existing buildings having to abide by legislationdesigned for new construction expands the scope of interventions and putssignificant financial pressure on the project, and in many cases, making itunfeasible for the owner to preserve the building. This systemic problembecomes a barrier to the preservation and reuse of buildings in general. Inthe long term, one can expect that LCA demands will also extend to existingbuildings, potentially creating new frameworks that better recognize theenvironmental benefits of building reuse and align economic incentives withsustainability goals. Sufficiency Over Efficiency When dealing with obsolete buildings like Nauticon that generally are ingood condition, they should be adaptable to changing needs and presenta fully attractive appearance for potential inhabitants. But how can buildingsstay relevant and be saved from demolition? This perspective also points tohow the buildings we construct today should incorporate a flexible designstrategy to safeguard continuously use of resource and adaptation. As such this article has addressed crucial issues on the topic of main- taining obsolete architecture specially concerning the relational and deter- mining character of tectonics and program when transforming an exist- ing building. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture Bibliography Breitling, Stefan, and Johannes Cramer. Architecture in Existing Fabric: Planning, Design, Building. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783034609449. Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). Prioritising Existing Buildings for People and Climate: Sufficiency as a Strategy to Address the Housing Crisis, Achieve Climate Targets and Protect Resources. Edited by Caroline Milne et al. Brussels: BPIE, 2024. https://www.bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Prioritising-existing-buildings-for-people-and-climate_final.pdf Byggeriets Videoproduktion, dir. Danmark Bygger - Varieret, Rationelt, Kvalitetsbyggeri. Produced byPer Kjćrbye, Henrik Lund, Peder Duelund Mortensen, and Annegrethe Thomsen. Byggestyrelsen, Byggeriets Udviklingsrĺd, 1990. Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). Prioritising Existing Buildings for People and Climate: Sufficiency as a Strategy to Address the Housing Crisis, Achieve Climate Targets and Protect Resources. Edited by Caroline Milne et al. Brussels: BPIE, 2024. https://www.bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Prioritising-existing-buildings-for-people-and-climate_final.pdf Cairns, Stephen, and Jane Jacobs. Buildings Must Die - A Perverse View of Architecture. London: MITPress, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.186673 “Context.” In Oxford English Dictionnary, June 22, 2025. https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=context&tl=true “Context.” In Merriam-Webster, June 22, 2025. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context. Eberhardt, Leonora, Agnes Garnow, Harpa Birgisdottir, Jřrgen Rose, and Jesper Kragh. Klimapotentialetved renovering kontra nedrivning med nybyg. 1st ed. BUILD Rapport Nr. 37, Aalborg Universitet, 2022. Engelmark, Jesper. Dansk byggeskik: etagebyggeriet gennem 150 ĺr. 2nd ed. Dansk Byggeskik.dk, 2014. European Commision. “The European Green Deal - Striving to Be the First Climate Neutral Continent. Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 ” Www.commission.europa.eu. The European GreenDeal, n.d. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en, https://doi.org/10.2775/08217 Falk Hansen, Carsten, and Marie Louise Hansen. Bygningsreglement 2018(BR 18). Herlev: Byggecentrum, 2018. Frampton, Kenneth. "Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance", In: The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture. Edited by Hal Foster. 1st ed. Port Townsend, Wash: Bay Press, 1983. Frampton, Kenneth, and John Cava. Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction inNineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture. With Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in theFine Arts. MIT Press, 1995. Frederiksen, Line Kjćr. “Adskillelsens Tektonik - Cirkulćre principper undersřgt i to nutidigebyggesystemer.” PhD dissertation, Royal Danish Academy, 2024. https://adk.elsevierpure.com/da/persons/line-kj%C3%A6r-frederiksen/publications/?type=%2Fdk%2Fatira%2Fpure%2Fresearchoutput%2Fresearchoutputtypes%2Fbookanthology%2Fphddissertation. Hartung, Anette. “Frygt for Bryggens Fremtid.” Ingeniřren, February 2, 1996. https://ing.dk/artikel/frygt- bryggens-fremtid. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAnne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture Hři, Arne, Morten Birk Jřrgensen, Thomas Brogren, and Sidsel Dyhl Stybe, eds. Klimavisioner formodernismens bygningskultur: etageboligbebyggelser 1930-1974. 1st ed. Copenhagen: Realdania, 2024. Hübsch, Heinrich. In What Style Should We Build? The German Debate on Architectural Style. Edited byHarry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann. Texts & Documents. Getty Center for the History ofArt and the Humanities; Distributed by the University of Chicago Press, 1992. Hvattum, Mari. Style and Solitude: The History of an Architectural Problem. The MIT Press, 2023. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. Edited by H. Lee and J. Romero. Geneva: IPCC, 2023. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647 Kieler Architects. “Nauticon.” Kieler Architects, n.d. https://kielerarchitects.dk/referencer. Lanz, Francesca, and John Pendlebury. “Adaptive Reuse: A Critical Review.” The Journal of Architecture27, nos. 2–3 (2022): 441–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2022.2105381. Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture. Translated by Frederick Etchells. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985. Leatherbarrow, David. The Roots of Architectural Invention: Site, Enclosure, Materials. RES Monographson Anthropology and Aesthetics. Cambridge [England]; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1993. Mřller, Sole Bugge. “Hvad Er Bedst for Klimaet – Renovering Eller Nedrivning?” http://www.dtu.dk/. Bćredygtigt Byggeri, DTU, 2025. https://www.dtu.dk/newsarchive/2025/04/hvad-er-bedst-for-klimaet- renovering-eller-nedrivning. Mostafavi, Mohsen, and David Leatherbarrow. On Weathering: The Life of Buildings in Time. MIT Press, 1993. Řstergaard, Casper, Heidi Aistrup Christensen, and Gitte Gylling Olesen, eds. “Analyse af design foradskillelse, Inspirationskatalog.” COWI & Social- og Byggestyrelsen, 2024. https://www.sbst.dk/Media/ 638453975257437297/Design%20for%20Adskillelse%20-%20Inspirationskatalog.pdf. Semper, Gottfried, and Harry Francis Mallgrave. The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings. Translated by Wolfgang Herrmann. First paperback edition. RES Monographs in Anthropology andAesthetics. Cambridge New York New Rochelle, Melbourne Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Stenak, Morten, ed. SAVE: kortlćgning og registrering af bymiljřers og bygningers bevaringsvćrdi. [Revised version]. Copenhagen: Kulturarvsstyrelsen, 2011. Stone, Sally. UnDoing Buildings: Adaptive Reuse and Cultural Memory. Routledge, Taylor and FrancisGroup, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315397221 Strike, James. Construction into Design: The Influence of New Methods of Construction on ArchitecturalDesign 1690- 1990. 1. publ. Butterworth Architecture, 1991. Wong, Liliane. Adaptive Reuse: Extending the Lives of Buildings. Birkhäuser, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783038213130 Edvard RavnikarThe search for ArchitecturalAuthenticity Aleš Vodopivec Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec 1 2 1[ab] National Bank Celje, photo Dušan Škerlep 2[ab] National Bank Kranj, photo Dušan Škerlep 1Edo Ravnikar, “Dve podružnici Narodne bankeSRS, Kranj in Celje”, Sinteza 1 (1964): 27. 2Ibid. 3All Ravnikar citations not otherwise quotedare from his personal notes and diaries keptby his heirs. 4Kenneth Frampton, “Towards a CriticalRegionalism: Six Points for an Architecture ofResistance”, in Labour, Work and Architectureby Kenneth Frampton (London, New York: Phaidon, 2002), 88 (first published in 1983). Edvard Ravnikar “Whereas man is by nature able to immediately understand how forcesare transmitted in wood or stone, for example, and to a much lesserdegree in roll-formed steel profiles, concrete with its hidden rebar core, an essential component of a structure, remains illegible to a lay person. Our aim was to make expressionless concrete comprehensible, so wehad to … invest special effort into its design. And although thisrequired much more intellectual work, we on the other hand gave (back) to architecture that source of design ingenuity that is inherent in thestructural component of the architectural concept.”1 This brief explanation that the Slovene Architect Edvard Ravnikar (1907– 1993) offered for his two buildings for the Celje and Kranj bank branches, completed in 1962, reveals that he considered the structural design, or moreprecisely the transmission of the force of gravity, as the essence of architec- ture, in both concept and form. He further explained that “in terms of thestructural solution, both projects somehow ignore the principle of the short- est and the most direct force path to the ground, which in a routine, standardskeletal structure usually appears as an awkward forest of columns betweentwo ceilings… In the case of the Celje branch, this can be seen in the harness- ing system, where the upper lattice sits on a hefty beam above the groundfloor, which in turn transfers loads onto two strong piers [ 1ab ]; in the Kranjbranch building, on the other hand, the same can be seen in the line ofcolumns that moves from the plane of the exterior wall of the into the planeof the exterior walls of the upper [ 2ab ]. In both cases, the solution reflectsthe functional need to provide a single unified space on the ground floor.”2 As he wrote in his personal notebook, architecture is not “an aestheticfigment of imagination“ 3, a result of an a priori image or an abstract artisticcomposition, but something entirely concrete and tangible. It is a result of theconstruction method, techniques and procedures used, its structural design, selected materials and their treatment, along with the underlying logic of theway the elements combine and connect—always hand in hand with itsfunction—which for Ravnikar was a prerequisite of for good architecture. The idea that a “comprehensible” structure might give architecture back the “source of design ingenuity” can be read as Ravnikar’s critique of modernistarchitecture, which he felt began to lose the foundation of its authenticitywhen it began to hide skeletal structures and other structural elements withina building’s interior. Similarly, Kenneth Frampton in his seminal essay oncritical regionalism pointed out two decades later that the primary principleof architectural autonomy resides in the tectonic rather than thescenographic. 4 Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec 3 3[a] The Municipality Building, Kranj, Miran Kambic [b] The Municipality Building, under construction [c] The Municipality Building, detail, photo MiranKambic [d] From Auguste Choisy. Historie de l‘ architecture. p. 280 [e] The Municipality Building, photo Janez Kališnik 5Aleš Vodopivec, “Pogovor z EdvardomRavnikarjem”, Nova revija 35–36 (1985): 295 6Ibid., 297 7Edvard Ravnikar, “Razmišljanje ob Omahnoviknjigi”, AB – Arhitektov bilten 30/31 (1976): 7. Edvard Ravnikar In this sense, Ravnikar frequently stressed the importance of classical archi- tecture and the universality of its discipline. In an interview in 1985, heexplained that for him, the discipline of classical architecture was founda- tional if one wanted to “move towards the higher spheres of architecturalknowledge5 … An educated architect is an architect with classical education. There are no others… If we look back to the early modern, there’s PaulCezanne, and we know that after him, everything that Mondrian went on tocreate was in his shadow. And this means the geometrically ordered visionthat derives from classicism.” 6 According to Ravnikar the pioneers of mod- ernism, Adolf Loos, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius, Alvar Aalto, and others, were in essence classicists, and even Le Corbusier “cannot beimagined without a very extensive and thorough knowledge of the laws andrules of the classical ideal, even though he employs them like a revolutionary, innovator, and avant-gardist.”7 As demonstrated with his municipality building in Kranj (1960), Ravnikar’s understanding of the classical discipline had nothing to do withtraditionalism, but with the quest for an identity and authenticity in architec- ture [ 3a ]. The photograph from the construction site reveals that when thereinforced concrete structure was completed, the building’s exterior alreadybegan to reveal itself [ 3b ]. The basic volume of the building is supported bymushroom columns on the ground floor, and the side walls. Hovering abovethe complex is a massive, tent-like gable roof in the form of a folded self-sup- porting slab. The weight of the roof is distributed lengthwise down twoV-shaped supports onto four piers; two are visible on the main façade andmark the division into three halls on the upper floor. The ceiling structure ofthe halls is suspended from the exposed roof truss via steel rods, leaving theentire floor free of interior support columns. The only façade element— subsequently added—consists of large panoramic windows inserted betweenthe structural elements, which gives the raised volume of the halls a sense oflightness, characteristic of modern architecture. The duality of lightness andweight is the common thread that runs through Ravnikar’s architecture. Theoriginal, distinctly sculptural structure follows the straightforward logic ofthe transmission of forces, weight, and support. Its design dictates the pro- portions, the rhythm, and the scale of individual parts as well as of the wholeof the building, which bears no historical motifs of classical architecture. Allstructural elements are designed in accordance with modernist principlesand contemporary structural engineering practices. Ravnikar was clearlyinterested in the poetics of tectonic form. [ 3cd ] At the same time, the municipality building’s modern design conceptcarries traces of vernacular architecture, which according to Ravnikar is ele- mentary and as such “surprisingly close to what contemporary architecture is Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec 4 4[a] The Rab Memorial Complex, Kampor, photoVladimir Braco Mušic [b] The Rab Memorial Complex, model [cd] The Rab Memorial Complex, Kampor, photoVladimir Braco Mušic [ef] from Auguste Choisy. Historie de l‘ architecture. pp. 414- 415 8Edo Ravnikar, “Sedem naglavnih grehov našearhitekture”, Sodobnost, 10 (1963): 924. 9Edvard Ravnikar, “Zgradba Okrajnegaljudskega odbora v Kranju”, Arhitekt 2 (1960): 17–18. 10Nace Šumi, “Dve razstavi slovenske modernearhitekture“, Sinteza 10–11 (1968): 10; StaneBernik. “Oris sodobne arhitekture v Kranju“, Sinteza 17 (1970): 14 11Thomas Stearns Eliot, “Tradition and Individ- ual Talent”, in Selected Essays by T. S. Eliot(New York: Harcourt, Brace and Comp., 1950), 4. Edvard Ravnikar seeking to achieve.”8 In both buildings he recognized adherence to tectonics. Ravnikar did not look at local building traditions for formal models, but tofind the relevance of traditional construction for the present day; he admiredstructural and spatial rationality and sincerity. The massive gable roof withexposed roof beams has long eaves to withstand the weather conditions. Thebuilding with its solid side walls stands firmly on the ground in keeping withthe traditional construction practice. Ravnikar used local materials andintroduced discreet, carefully thought-out details, characteristic of our builtheritage, keeping the interior rational and simple. The result is a buildingthat appears restrained in its setting, yet elegant and impressive. [ 3 e ] Completely transformed historical elements and motifs, such ascolumns, walls, piers, and exposed roof trusses, as well as structural precepts, were designed in accordance with modernist principles. With his originalinterpretation of the fundamental principles of classical architecture com- bined with structural principles and spatial designs derived from the vernac- ular tradition, Ravnikar created a modern architecture with a unique culturalidentity. In his words: “… at the core of it all is the hall with its interior visiblefrom the square; the roof is accentuated the way one’s good hat rounds offSunday’s best clothes, the front door is heavy, etc. – in short, practical, usableforms with a symbolic value.” 9 The building with its abstract, geometrically ordered exterior, free ofornamentation, is evidently modern, but at the same time strikingly classical, axially symmetrical, and tripartite. It is only the ground floor column on theaxis of the building and the asymmetrically situated main entrance to thebuilding that defy the principles of classical rigour. On the one hand, thestrict symmetry of the façade can be interpreted as an original paraphrasingof the classical temple, and on the other of the most modest works of Sloven- ian vernacular architecture. Soon after its completion, the municipality building in Kranj was hailedas the pinnacle of its time10 and a unique milestone that showed a cleardeflection from international canons, expressing instead the local traditionblended with the principles of modern architecture. Ravnikar’s understanding of architecture is an expression of the excep- tional breadth of his intellectual horizons, and of his keen interest in historyand tradition. Which is surprising, given a revolutionary time that did notlook kindly on the past. His attitude towards tradition can be best describedin the words of T. S. Eliot, who said that “the historical sense involves a per- ception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence.” 11 Like Eliot, Ravnikar maintained that “tradition is no sterile perseverance, but a certainnimble affinity that looks to the past, not for worn-out models, but for pointsof reference.” Further, he noted that “tradition is an arrow pointing to the Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec 5 5[a] The Rab Memorial Complex, Obelisk, photoAleš Vodopivec [b] The Rab Memorial Complex, Obelisk, photoVladimir Braco Mušic [c] The Rab Memorial Complex, Obelisk, photoAleš Vodopivec [d] From Auguste Choisy. Historie de l‘ architecture. p. 274 12William J. R. Curtis. “Abstraction and Repre- sentation / The Memorial Complex at Kampor, on the Island of Rab (1952-3) by EdvardRavnikar”, in Architect Edvard Ravnikar, Memo- rial Complex on the Island of Rab, 1953, editedby Miha Dešman (Ljubljana: catalogue ofSlovenia’s exhibition at the 9th InternationalArchitectural Exhibition in Venice, 2004), 19. 13Edo Ravnikar, “Spomenik NOB na Rabu”, Arhitekt 11 (1954): 14–15. 14Auguste Choisy. Historie de l‘ architecture( Paris: Librairie Georges Baranger, 1929), 414¬15. 15Le Corbusier, Vers une architecture (Paris: Leséditions G. Crčs, 1924), 151. 16Choisy, p.274. Edvard Ravnikar future … … Architectural thought needs to acknowledge tradition, some- thing that was here before, but through its own eyes.” Similarly, William Curtis in his analysis of Ravnikar’s Memorial Com- plex at Kampor on the island of Rab observed that “Ravnikar distilled andtransformed an ancient ruin then recast it in terms of modern architec- ture.”12 Completed in 1953 to mark the tenth anniversary of the liberation ofthe Italian concentration camp, the cemetery was designed as a monumentalcontemplative route with architectural elements including platforms, build- ing volumes, columns, walls, and openings, where carefully controlled viewsof balanced spatial compositions open up to the visitor via key vantage points[ 4ab ] . Ravnikar noted that it was his intention to “translate architectonicqualities from decorative and structural elements to optical ones. The colourcontrasts offered by the stone, the surrounding greenery and the blue of thesea, the relationships between the verticals of the architecture and the hori- zontals of the sea combined with composed views that connect the existinglandscape elements with new ones, are the key means the architect uses tomanipulate the observer.” 13 He looked to ancient Greek architecture fora model, in particular to the design of building masses in the Acropolis ofAthens and the Propylaeum in view of carefully framed vistas from vantagepoints on the procession route [ 4cd ]. The method was introduced byAuguste Choisy in his book Histoire de l‘architecture (1899)14 [ 4ef ], and wasreferenced also by Le Corbusier in his seminal work Vers une architecture. 15 The use of local stone, too, pays homage to classical architecture. It isa lesson in stone construction, in how stone blocks are stacked, arranged, andheld in place. The tallest structure, a 12-metre-tall obelisk is composed ofheavy stone blocks stacked one on top of the other using only lead joints heldtogether by steel cables within. These emerge in a gutter- shaped form on thetop of the obelisk, which appears heavy, yet light and slender [ 5a ]. The weight of the obelisk is additionally emphasised by a carved outgroove for hoisting ropes [ 5bcd ]. The motif, also featured in Choisy’s book, is known from the temple of Agrigento. 16 Given the limited resources andthe construction technology available in former Yugoslavia, the most likelymethod of lifting stone blocks on Rab was with a pulley system, similar tothose used already by the ancient Greeks. The central architectural accent of the complex, the building of the so- called “museum”, is built in a similar fashion [ 6ab ]. A simple curved shelteris composed of strong primary stone ribs visible both on the exterior andinterior sides, and secondary infills in the form of thinner stone facetsclipped together with lead clamps. The lateral stability of the vaulted struc- ture is ensured by three steel cables, their ends exposed and covered by stonecaps where they protrude at both ends of the ribs of the parabolic curve. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec 6 6[a] The Rab Memorial Complex, Museum, photoVladimir Braco Mušic [b] The Rab Memorial Complex, Museum, photoMiran Kambic [cd] The Rab Memorial Complex, Museum, photoAleš Vodopivec [e] The Rab Memorial Complex, Museum, photoVladimir Braco Mušic 17Curtis, p. 27. 18Ibid. Edvard Ravnikar Again, we see a distinctly dual character of a stone structure that is heavy, yetseems to float, lifted off the ground and supported only by four ‘legs’ to allowdaylight to flood the inside of the vault from beneath. [ 6cd ] With its timeless poetics, the memorial complex on Rab exudesrestrained monumentality free of ideological connotations. William Curtisobserves that Ravnikar inherited the “desire to transform the past and to fusethe forms of diverse civilizations in a new symbolic language” 17 from histeacher Jože Plecnik. “At Rab, Ravnikar uses ‘basic elements’ in a way thatoscillates continually between common, vernacular usage, and monumentalform. Great attention is given to joints, textures, and contrasts of stone fin- ishes.” 18 In the 1960s, Ravnikar put forward a series of competition projects thatstand out with their exceptionally bold and expressive structural designs: thewinning design for the Skopje Town Hall (1967) [ 7 ], the design for the Cen- tral Committee Building of the Communist Party of Macedonia (1966), theproposal for the international competition for the new city centre of Espoo, Finland (1968), and others, which regrettably were never realized. His built projects, however, also show a distinctly sculptural structurethat complies with the elementary logic of the difference between supportingand supported parts of a building, something that was obvious already withboth aforenoted bank branches. While all Ravnikar’s realizations areunequivocally modern, they are also classically tripartite with an accentuatedground floor structure that supports a lighter body of the upper floors and iscompleted on the top with a cornice. Typically, the ground floor has accentu- ated structural elements, massive columns that are often reinforced by mush- room heads to tackle large spans; these carry massive horizontal, usuallyV-shaped beams that support the lighter volume of the upper floors clad inthe façade envelope, or coat. As a rule, the ground floor is glazed across theperimeter, but it is the materials and finishes on the façade envelope thatreveal the function of a building. Contrary to modernist principles, the topfloor is completed with a cornice as a vertical conclusion of the building, which only grows more distinctive with time until it takes on the role of thetraditional eaves. Ravnikar frequently stressed the importance of eaves in ourclimate, namely because they protect the façade from the elements. On occa- sion a lighter structure appears on a flat roof as a very free interpretation ofthe traditional roof; this is often the most dynamically shaped element ofa building. The exception is the roof over the bank branch in the old town ofCelje, where to ensure consistency of the built fabric the modern buildingreceived a gable roof that follows the ridges of the historic buildings on themain square. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec 7 8 7The Skopje Town Hall, competition project 8[ab] Ljudska pravica Print Works, photo JanezKališnik 19Friedrich Achleitner, “On a Quotation fromEdvard Ravnikar”, in Edvard Ravnikar, Archi- tect and Teacher, eds. Aleš Vodopivec, RokŽnidaršic (Dunaj, Springer, 2010), 61. Edvard Ravnikar In the decades following WWII, the domestic construction industry was inpoor health and with its lack of economic strength the country did not haveaccess to the construction products available in more advanced countries. Such limitations forced architects to seek unconventional solutions, andsparked innovations unknown in more developed countries. At the time, every detail, every façade element, window frame, doorpost, door handle andsuch was an unequalled invention that Slovenian architecture had not seenbefore. This explains Ravnikar’s claim that architecture is the domain ofunderdeveloped countries19, and as for himself, he noted that “I still designas I did under Plecnik: a concept and separate designs for the importantparts: the façade, foyers, stairways, doors, windows etc. My aim is to payequal attention across the board to give the building a structure that wouldevolve naturally to the last detail.” Ravnikar worked with technology that was modern but suited to his cir- cumstances and context. He tested the properties and capacities of domesticbuilding materials and explored different possibilities for the industrial treat- ment of traditional materials. He demonstrated the endless possibilities ofusing face bricks, prefabricated concrete panels, thin stone veneer, Cortensteel, plastic, etc. Gradually, he abandoned the craft-based approach to build- ing, even when he used traditional, local materials. He shaped, arranged andconnected them in an entirely modern, more industrial- like manner, withaccentuated edges, and exposed joints and fasteners. In this manner he artic- ulated the exterior, and analogously, with cladding, also the interior of hisbuildings. The result was architecture distinctive for its striking complexityand unique poetical presence. Ravnikar was excited about contemporary structural possibilities, but healso left his signature with a distinctive façade envelope. His work thusembodies a characteristic duality, or rather a synthesis of Plecnik’s take onGottfried Semper’s theory of dressing (Bekleidungstheorie) on the one hand, and on the other the Anglo-French tradition, which focuses in the first placeon the authenticity of the building material and the authority of the struc- ture, something that was distinctive of work in Le Corbusier’s studio, whereRavnikar spent several months before the outbreak of WWII. While in his early works the façade cladding is still relatively strict, geo- metrically ordered, and two-dimensional, he gradually developed an increas- ingly sculptural approach when he began to accentuate how façade elementswere combined and fastened. The front façades of office storeys on the Ljuds- ka Pravica Office and Printworks building (1961), for example [ 8a ], aredesigned as alternating horizontal bands of plastic parapets and windows inexceptionally thin profiles, all of them on the same plane, with fasteners hid- den out of sight [ 8b ]. The exterior with its steady façade rhythm reveals the Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec 9 10 9[abcdef] Ferant Garden Residential Complex, Ljubljana, photo Miran Kambic 10[abc] Hotel Creina, Kranj, photo Damjan Gale Edvard Ravnikar interior design concept, the distribution of offices of different sizesacross floors. The underlying logic of the brick façades for the Ferant Garden residen- tial complex (1967–73) is that of the load-bearing skeleton and infills, i.e. thecontrast between structural elements in exposed concrete and the façadebrick cladding that envelops the building like a fabric, or a coat [ 9abc ]. Thefaçades are divided into storey-height strips marked by visible edges of hori- zontal, reinforced concrete slabs. While the concrete structure with its manybrackets, balconies, piers, bay windows, built-in planters and cornices thatextend far beyond the buildings adds to the sculptural presence of the build- ing volume, the vertical connections, edges, and corners of the brick claddingon the storeys serve as decorative accents, hems in the form of elaboratelyshifted bricks that articulate the textile metaphor of the building’s dress[ 9def ]. A similar façade treatment was used also for Kranj’s Hotel Creina(1970) [ 10abc ]. Folds in the façade envelope give depth to the architecture, the thirddimension that is additionally emphasised by the interplay of light and shad- ow. This quality comes to the fore in the Republic Square complex (originallyRevolution Square), where the textile metaphors are so explicit that theyevoke pleated draperies [ 11abc ]. The stone slabs of the façade protrude fromthe building like shades, forming oriels by the windows and where the lightpauses, thus articulating the horizontal and vertical division of the façades. There is no contact where they cross paths; they often change direction, angle, and plane, as a rule reaching across corners as well as across contactswith the load-bearing structure. Despite its weight, the granite claddingappears light against the cast concrete of the supporting structure; this isadditionally underlined by visible edges that reveal the thinness of the slabs. Unlike in his earlier works, where Ravnikar hid façade fasteners, the RepublicSquare buildings bare their façade fasteners open, showing them off likea unique architectural ornament – or stiches on a dress. The substructurealso peeks out here and there, additionally enhancing the lightness of thefaçade envelope. [ 11 de ] The construction of the Republic Square complex took more than twodecades (1960–82). The political and economic crisis at the time meant thatnew investors took over the project and introduced new programmes. Insteadof the planned political centre of the country, the complex became the city’scommercial and cultural centre. This meant extensive changes to the originalurban and architectural concept: both towers were lowered to half the envis- aged height and received instead an articulated façade and dynamic finisheson the top, which together with the ground floor extensions contributes tothe rich tapestry of the complex. [ 11f ] Ravnikar tried to keep pace with Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec 11 11[a] The Republic Square complex, photo DamjanGale [b] The Republic Square complex, photo MiranKambic [cde] The Republic Square complex, photoDamjan Gale [f] The Republic Square complex, photo MiranKambic 20Edo Ravnikar, “Trg revolucije”, Sinteza 30, 31,32 (1974): 82. Edvard Ravnikar always new programmatic and investment initiatives with a so-called “opendesign process”, something he had not done before: “for years now, it hasbeen clear that it is impossible to achieve the goals and satisfy the complexneeds of today by ’designing every detail down to the last screw’. There isanother way, where we have to keep in mind the fickleness of future situa- tions, the always new constellation of partners, and shifting financial andtechnological capacities without losing control of the flow of events, so thatwe can ensure that our intentions grow into a reality.” 20 The most notable figure of the Ljubljana school of architecture after JožePlecnik, Ravnikar was a charismatic teacher who left a profound mark ongenerations of architects with his projects, writings, and pedagogical work. Itwas largely owing to him that a special, regionally adapted modernist archi- tecture began to emerge in Slovenia after the end of WWII. At the time whenlocal characteristics of the built environment were already beginning to dis- appear across the world and when other Yugoslav republics embraced inter- national modernism, Ravnikar advocated for architecture with a culturallyspecific character. He built the authenticity of Slovenian architecture on thefoundations of tectonic principles of classical and vernacular architecture, asa dialogue between modernism and tradition, the universal and the local. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramAleš Vodopivec Edvard Ravnikar Bibliography Achleitner, Friedrich. “On a Quotation from Edvard Ravnikar”. In Edvard Ravnikar, Architect and Teacher, edited by Aleš Vodopivec, Rok Žnidaršic, 61-66. Wien: Springer, 2010. Bernik, Stane. “Oris sodobne arhitekture v Kranju“. Sinteza 17 (1970): 7–14. Choisy, Auguste. Historie de l‘ architecture. Paris: Librairie Georges Baranger, 1929. Le Corbusier. Vers une architecture. Paris: Les éditions G. Crčs, 1924. Curtis, William J. R. “Abstraction and Representation / The Memorial Complex at Kampor, on the Islandof Rab (1952-3) by Edvard Ravnikar”. In Architect Edvard Ravnikar, Memorial Complex on the Island ofRab, 1953, edited by Miha Dešman, 17–35. Ljubljana: catalogue of Slovenia’s exhibition at the 9thInternational Architectural Exhibition in Venice, 2004. Eliot, Thomas Stearns. “Tradition and Individual Talent”. In Selected Essays by T. S. Eliot, 3–11. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Comp., 1950. Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance”. InLabour, Work and Architecture, edited by Kenneth Frampton, 77–89. London, New York: Phaidon, 2002(first published in 1983). Ravnikar, Edo. “Dve podružnici Narodne banke SRS, Kranj in Celje”. Sinteza 1 (1964): 26–29. Ravnikar, Edo. “Sedem naglavnih grehov naše arhitekture”. Sodobnost, 10 (1963): 920–926. Ravnikar, Edo. “Spomenik NOB na Rabu”, Arhitekt 11 (1954): 14–15. Ravnikar, Edo. “Trg revolucije”, Sinteza 30, 31, 32 (1974): 81–96. Ravnikar, Edvard. “Razmišljanje ob Omahnovi knjigi”, AB – Arhitektov bilten 30/31 (1976): 81–96. Ravnikar, Edvard. “Zgradba Okrajnega ljudskega odbora v Kranju”, Arhitekt 2 (1960): 17–20. Šumi, Nace. “Dve razstavi slovenske moderne arhitekture“, Sinteza 10-11 (1968): 6–10. Vodopivec, Aleš. “Pogovor z Edvardom Ravnikarjem”, Nova revija 35-36 (1985): 292–304. Frank Lloyd Wright and theNature of Concrete Robert McCarter Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter1Horatio Greenough, “Form and Function” (1852), reprinted in Roots of ContemporaryArchitecture, ed. Lewis Mumford (New York: Dover, 1972), p.33. 2Louis Sullivan, “Characteristics and Tenden- cies of American Architecture” (1885) reprint- ed in Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings( New York: Dover, 1979), p.177. 3Ibid., p179. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete Critical events in architectural history are most often scripted in stylistic orpurely formal terms. Yet for architects practicing in America in the latterdecades of the 19th century, another definition of the discipline of architec- ture was foremost in their minds—a definition much less concerned withfashion and form, and much more concerned with the tradition of buildingand the making of places. To understand the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, I believe we must better understand this tradition in which he began his lifework. The tradition of building, largely lost today in America, is concernednot with what a building looks like, but with how it is built and how thisaffects what is experienced. Horatio Greenough, American transcendentalist philosopher, definedwhat he first called “organic architecture” in his influential 1852 essay enti- tled “Form and Function,” written 15 years before Wright’s birth. He alsoissued a challenge that was later taken up Sullivan and Wright: “The mind ofour country has never been seriously applied to the subject of building… Wehave been content to receive our notions of architecture as we have received thefashions of our garments and the forms of our entertainments, from Europe.”1Please note Greenough’s use of terms such as “fashions,” “forms,” and “enter- tainment” to describe what is not involved in “the subject of building.” Louis Sullivan, from whom Wright received his training in architecture, keenly felt “the absence of a style, distinctly American,” yet warned againstefforts to speed its arrival by “grafting or transplanting” historical styles fromother cultures onto the American continent. 2 In this same article, writtenand delivered as a speech in 1885 (two years before Wright first arrived inChicago), Sullivan characterized architectural education of his day, dominat- ed by the Ecole des Beaux Arts, as not cultivating either the common sense ofanalytical thinking or the individual insight of each student. Rather, architec- tural education promoted the classical styles as fashionable form, not asa part of the tradition of building. Sullivan characterized the teaching in American architecture schools asbeing “dependent upon the verbal explanation and comment of its exponents. A knowledge of their vocabulary is often of assistance in disclosing softness andrefinement in many primitive expedients, and revealing beauty in barrenplaces. Familiarity with the phraseology of the applied arts is also useful inassisting the student to a comprehension of many things apparently incompre- hensible. Metaphor and simile are rampant in this connection, a well-chosenword often serving to justify an architectural absurdity.” 3 I should point out that this scathing criticism is equally applicable tomuch contemporary architectural education and design; that it is a frighten- ingly accurate description of recently fashionable forms documented anddisseminated in the architectural media; and that it reminds us how, to this Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter4Otto Graf, “The Art of the Square,” Frank LloydWright: A Primer on Architectural Principles, ed. Robert McCarter (New York: PrincetonArchitectural Press, 1989), p.219. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete day, we Americans are still prone to believe that form alone is sufficient. Andfor this reason, I believe Frank Lloyd Wright’s effort to arrive at an Americanarchitecture by different route, one altogether opposed to the trading instyles, forms and fashions, has important implications for architectural edu- cation and practice today. What tradition, other than this still-dominant American obsession withform alone, did Wright engage in his search for an appropriate Americanarchitecture?— the tradition of building, for which Greenough had first calledin 1852. Here it is important to remember that Wright’s training to be anarchitect was not the academic training of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, butrather was apprenticeship training, largely in the office of Adler and Sullivan, and quite literally “on the job.” This apprenticeship method of becoming anarchitect derived from the medieval guild tradition of craft training, whichuntil only little more than 100 years ago was the only way one could becomean architect. Apprenticeship training in the craft of architecture, being literally “hands-on,” required learning by making, and is in many ways the exactopposite of the distanced, objective methods of knowing architecture laterdeveloped in the American university. Based upon formal comparisons anduniversal systems of both signification and construction, academic traininghas in this century redefined the relation between students and their designs, resulting in an ever-increasing separation from the tradition of practice. Today I would argue that this tradition of practice, of learning to be anarchitect by (as Greenough said) seriously applying one’s mind to “the subjectof building,” has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist in Americanschools of architecture, and that is has therefore inevitably vanished from ourprofessional practices, which are today made up entirely of architectureschool graduates. Due to this blind spot on our part, in order to discern the Frank LloydWright whom Otto Graf has called the “most traditional architect,” 4 and themanner in which Wright’s work exemplifies and extends the tradition ofbuilding into our time, we must look very carefully at aspects of Wright’swork that have either been ignored altogether or “interpreted” into the domi- nant formal and stylistic logic that rules the discipline of architectur- al history. While the field of architectural history has from its beginning (at thesame moment as the founding of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts) been dominatedby those trained in the formal and stylistic mechanisms of art history, thepracticing profession has increasingly been effected by the writings of thosetrained as architects in the tradition of building—among whom I would noteReyner Banham, Aldo Van Eyck, Alvar Aalto, Louis Kahn, Jorn Utzon, Aldo Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 1 1Construction test of reinforced concrete “petal” column, Johnson Wax Building, Racine, Wisconsin, 1936, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Wrightappears at right. Photo copyright FLW Archives. 5Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995). 6Louis Sullivan, “What is Just Subordination, inArchitectural Detail, of Details to Mass?” reprinted in Kindergarten Chats, op. cit., p.182. 7Henry Russell Hitchcock, In the Nature ofMaterials (New York: Hawthorn, 1942). Titlegiven by Wright, who provided materials andguidance to Hitchcock in this first “autho- rized” monograph. 8Frank Lloyd Wright, “The Princeton Lectures” (1930), The Future of Architecture (New York: Horizon, 1963), p.162. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete Rossi, Vittorio Gregotti, Alvaro Siza, Colin St. John Wilson, David Chipper- field, and Juhani Pallasmaa. Above all I would point to the enormous recent influence on practition- ers of the writings of Kenneth Frampton, whose 1995 Studies in Tectonic Cul- ture constitutes an entire “other” or alternative, making- based history ofarchitecture, one based neither on stylistic definitions and symbolic interpre- tations, nor on the formal concerns of the theorist or historian, but insteadon the tradition of building, the poetics of construction, and the matters ofmaking with which architecture as a métier is inextricably intertwined in itspractice in the lifeworld. 5 In 1887, the year Wright arrived in Chicago at age 20, Sullivan gavea public lecture in which he defined—in terms strikingly similar toFrampton’s “tectonic culture” and “critical regionalism”—what was neededfor the development of an appropriate American architecture. According toSullivan, such an architecture would only develop on a regional basis, withvariations dependent not upon stylistic or formal preconceptions, but ratherdue to the influence of local climate, topography, available constructionmaterials and methods of building. 6 Sullivan summarized this as a well- trained “curiosity with regard to what may be done,” and the young Wrighttook this definition as his personal charge. Throughout his life as an architect, Frank Lloyd Wright attempted torelate the spaces and forms of his designs to the structures and materials withwhich they were made—as he said, he worked “in the nature of materials.” 7Wright believed this was essential if his buildings were to be edifying forthose who inhabited them. Aedificare, the ancient word for building, meansboth to edify, to instruct, and to build, to construct—and both understood tobe undertaken with ethical intention. Wright engaged in a constant search for a comprehensive order thatwould encompass both composition and construction, an order similar to thefusion of structure, material, form and function that he had found in hisstudies of nature. Wright attempted to develop forms from the rhythm inher- ent in each particular system of construction he employed, so that the con- struction might in turn be integrated with and responsive to the spatial idea—achieving what he termed “simplicity:” “There is only one way to get thatsimplicity. And that way is, on principle, by way of construction developed asarchitecture.” 8 [ 1 ] Essential to Wright’s architecture was his understanding that the waya space is made or constructed is directly related to the way it is experienced. Thus for Wright, construction was never simply a means to some end; it wasan essential part of the final experience of life that took place within, andthus was required to be fully integrated in the process of design. Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter9Frank Lloyd Wright, (1929), Writings and Build- ings, ed. E. Kaufmann and B. Raeburn (NewYork: New American Library, 1960), p.101. 10Frank Lloyd Wright, “The Life-Work of Ameri- can Architect Frank Lloyd Wright” Wendigen( 1925; reprint, New York: Horizon, 1965), p.57. 11Frank Lloyd Wright, An Autobiography (NewYork: Horizon, 1932), p.270. 12Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass (1892; reprint, New York: Library of America, 1982), p.559. 13David van Zanten, “Schooling the PrairieSchool,” The Nature of Frank Lloyd Wright, ed. Bolon, et. al., (Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress, 1988), p. 71. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete From the very beginning of his career, Wright utilized what he called “theunit system” of square-grid planning, a “highly developed expression of struc- ture” which provided the “sympathetic frame for the life going on within.” 9The square grid or unit system that underlay all of Wright’s designs operatedas both an essential compositional and scaling device, and as a measure andorganizational method for construction—the formal and economic controlrequired to achieve integral order and organic rhythm. Early examples of this would include the wood board and batten housesof the Prairie Period, such as the Walter Gerts Cottage, Whitehall, Michigan, of 1902, where the plan is rigorously structured on a 2 foot square construc- tion grid, and the elevations are structured on a 1 foot (board) and 1 inch(batten) horizontal grid. Less obvious is the square structural plan grid ofballoon frame wood studs underlying the plastered facades of the WardWillits House, Highland Park, Illinois, of 1901, where the 3 foot, 3 inch gridis revealed only in the banks of glass window and doors. As with most ofWright’s larger houses of this period, the Willits House also has hidden steelbeams at the first floor and roof, allowing their generous flow of spaces. As Wright put it: “All the buildings I have ever built, large and small, arefabricated upon a unit system—as the pile of a rug is stitched into the warp. Thus each structure is an ordered fabric. Rhythm, consistent scale of parts, andthe economy of construction are greatly facilitated by this simple expedient—amechanical one absorbed in the final result to which it has given more consis- tent texture.” 10 While it is typical to relate architecture first to sculptureamong the other arts, it is of the utmost importance to note that Wrightrefers to himself not as a sculptor, but as “the weaver.” 11 Wright engaged geometry for both its poetic and practical capacities. Indescribing the square geometry underlying Unity Temple, Wright quotedWalt Whitman: “Chanting the square deific, out of the One advancing, out of the sides, Out of the old and the new, out of the square entirely divine, Solid, four-sided, all sides needed”12 Yet in his integrated design process, Wright employed the very same geome- try in the most practical manner; as David van Zanten has noted, in theChicago School in which Wright had apprenticed, “the foremost issue wasalways how one put things together,” and Wright’s “geometric purity wasa means to expedite assembly, achieving a kind of mechanical self-generation inarchitectural composition.” 13 Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 2 3 2Robie House, Chicago, Illinois, 1908, Frank LloydWright, architect. Photograph by author. 3Interior of Larkin Building, Buffalo, New York, 1903, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photo copyrightFLW Archives. 14Frank Lloyd Wright, An American Architecture( New York: Horizon, 1955), p.84. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete Therefore, for Wright, the nature of architecture was closely related to thenature of its construction, and the nature of its materials. But we need to takecare not to impose our own contemporary interpretations on Wright. LouisKahn, in so many ways Wright’s best disciple, was most definitely not in thiscase. Kahn called for the exposure of structure in buildings as an ethicalimperative— concealing structure was, for Kahn, absolutely wrong. The hid- den steel beams in the extraordinary roof cantilevers and brick balcony ofWright’s 1909 Robie House would fail Kahn’s test. Yet Wright received andaddressed this same criticism in his own time: “Why should you alwaysexpose structure? I call it indecent exposure.” 14 [ 2 ] Wright’s understanding of “the nature of materials” was determined bythe task at hand, rather than any rationale arising from outside the work. ForWright, materials and construction were to be ordered and detailed to char- acterize the spatial experience of inhabitation, and “the nature of materials” was profoundly inflected by the overall spatial and experiential intention ofthe design. Like geometry, for Wright, materials played their part in a designprocess that brought the poetic (sacred) and the practical (mundane) togeth- er without contradiction, creating a work that operated on several levelssimultaneously to enrich the experience in a way that any single interpreta- tion alone could not. It is important to note that Wright most typically engaged materials— including concrete—in hybrid systems of construction, employing two ormore structural materials in any design. To conclude the example of theRobie House, Chicago, Illinois, 1909, I would point out how the steel thatframes all the horizontal planes is never exposed; it is revealed through thespatial freedom it allows the inhabitants. Other examples from this periodwould include the two great hybrid constructions in Buffalo, New York, theLarkin Building of 1903, and the Darwin Martin House of 1904. The LarkinBuilding has interior columns of steel, clad in brick, and exterior columns ofload-bearing brick, with cast concrete floors supported on steel beams, cladin cement plaster. The Martin House has load-bearing brick piers supportingsteel beams, clad in cement plaster, and reinforced concrete lintel- beams, which in turn carry reinforced concrete floors. [ 3 ] Yet the structural steel that made Wright’s open, flowing spaces possiblewas never revealed to the eye—it could only be sensed as a fully integratedpart of the larger experience. And while I have noted the differences in inter- pretation between Wright and Kahn on the issue of exposing structure, I should also point out that these great Prairie Period works of Wright’s areexperienced as places made of masonry and concrete—exactly the materialsKahn, at the age of 50, chose to engage exclusively in his architecture. Kahn’sdecision to abandon lightweight steel, and to employ only heavy concrete and Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter15Frank Lloyd Wright, “The Village Bank Series,” Frank Lloyd Wright, Collected Writings, 1894– 1930, ed., B. B. Pfeiffer (New York: Rizzoli, 1992), p.72. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete masonry, marked his emergence as a great architect, for all of his now- famous buildings came after this decision as to the nature of materials—anature discovered by Kahn in the early works of Frank Lloyd Wright, andmost tellingly in Unity Temple. After this extended preamble, we now arrive to the topic of this essay: Frank Lloyd Wright and the nature of concrete. Why concrete? Wright con- sidered reinforced concrete to be the one truly modern material—“modern” for Wright because concrete was entirely “plastic,” able to be formed into anyconceivable shape, fully fireproof and self-supporting. Reinforced concretewas also the construction material with which Wright had both his greatestdifficulties and his greatest successes. An examination of Wright’s efforts toappropriately employ reinforced concrete also illustrates the tradition ofbuilding as Wright redefined it in the 20th century. Wright’s Unity Temple is often cited as the first exposed concrete publicbuilding in the US, but technically this is not correct. More than 20 yearsbefore, Carrere and Hastings, along with their young on-site project architectBernard Maybeck, built two extraordinary hotels in Saint Augustine, Floridafor the railroad tycoon Henry Flagler; the Ponce de Leon and Alcazar Hotelsof 1885. However, Wright’s Unity Temple may rightly be considered the firstexposed reinforced concrete public building in the US, for the Florida hotelswere built of unreinforced mass concrete, the only steel being railroad tiescast in place over the window openings. While he has often been reputed to be “ahead of his time,” in both spa- tial composition and building construction, the fact is that Wright was rarely “the first” architect to engage any particular material or method of construc- tion. What makes Wright’s work an important precedent was his astonishingability to discover new spatial and experiential potentialities in every materi- al he engaged. What is apparently Wright’s first design to exclusively employ reinforcedconcrete was the Monolithic Concrete Bank project of 1894, ironically pub- lished in Brickbuilder magazine. This project, though small, could not bemore monumental—its façade was directly related to Egyptian temple fronts, and its piers emerged from the wall “in eminently plastic fashion,” as Wrightsaid.15 Designed one year after Wright left the Sullivan office, the whole hasa singularity of space, born of the fusion of form, structure, and material thatis exactly the opposite of the Chicago steel frame skyscraper. In Unity Temple, designed in late 1905 and completed construction in1908 in Oak Park, Illinois, Wright employed reinforced concrete, inside andout, because of the manner in which its monolithic, homogenous naturematched the program of Unitarian worship. The uniquely synthetic concep- tion of unity—the fusion of space, material and experience—which Wright Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 4 5 6 4Interior of Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois, 1906, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photograph byauthor. 5Exterior of Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois, 1906, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Period photographfrom 1908, copyright by FLW Archives. 6Construction photograph, late 1907, Unity Temple, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photo copyrightFLW Archives. 16Wright, An Autobiography, op. cit., p. 212–213. 17Ibid. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete sought to embody in Unity Temple, required a similar fusion in its material: “there was only one material to choose…concrete.” Reinforced concrete wouldbe used throughout, for both vertical and horizontal surfaces and structures, “nothing else if the building was to be thoroughbred, meaning built in characterout of one material.” 16[ 4 ] Intending a fusion of construction and composition, Wright wrote: “Why not make the wooden boxes or forms so that the concrete could be cast inthem as separate blocks and masses grouped about an interior space in somesuch way as to preserve this desired sense of the interior space in the appearanceof the whole building. And the block-masses would be left as themselves with nofacing. That would be cheap and permanent…” “Too monumental, all this? Itwould be nobly simple. The wooden forms or molds in which the concrete mustat that time be cast were always the chief item of expense, so to repeat the use ofa simple form as often as possible was necessary. Therefore a building, all foursides alike, looked like the thing. This, in simplest terms, meant a buildingsquare in plan. That would make their temple a cube—a noble form.” 17 ForWright, there was no contradiction in noting in the same phrase both thepoetic (“noble” and “permanent”) and practical (reuse of “a single form asoften as possible” so as to be “cheap”) characteristics of concrete as a con- struction material. [ 5 ] Wright cast the concrete in repeating formwork so that the 7 foot mod- ule of the square plan grid would be expressed in the “separate blocks andmasses” of the finished building. Period photographs also reveal the fine hor- izontal texture that the wooden board forms originally imprinted on the sur- face of the concrete, leading some publications whose writers did not visit thebuilding in person, but only saw photographs, to claim that Unity Templewas constructed of brick. In these ways we see how Unity Temple was bothconceived and constructed as a woven fabric, “fabricated upon a unitsystem.” Here we might note, in the construction sequence of Unity Temple asdocumented in the period photograph taken in early 1907, the interestingpremonition of Wright’s Guggenheim Museum. Only one set of wood form- work was made for each of the four sides of Unity Temple, with the wallbeing cast first; the wall forms being moved around to the next side and thecolumn forms being set up on top of the completed wall; the column formsbeing moved around to the next side and the roof forms being set up on topof the completed columns; and so on until the cubic volume of Unity Templehad been completed. I have described an upward spiraling sequence ofconstruction—a sequence Wright reinterpreted fifty years later in theGuggenheim’s upward spiraling sequence of movement in space. [ 6 ] Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 7 8 7Interior of Unity Temple, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photograph by author. 8Harry Brown House project, 1906, Frank LloydWright, architect. Drawing copyright FLWArchives. 18Rodney Johonnot, Oak Leaves (Oak Park: Uni- tarian Church, 24 February 1906), p.3. 19Jenkin Lloyd Jones, Unity LXIV (Chicago: Uni- tarian Church, 30 September 1909), p.484. 20Frank Lloyd Wright, “In the Cause of Architec- ture” (1908, The Architectural Record), reprint- ed In the Cause of Architecture (New York: Architectural Record Books, 1975), p.63. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete Reinforced concrete’s attributes appealed to Wright’s client, the ReverendRodney Johonnot, who wrote that the concrete of Unity Temple was to be “poured and stamped in forms, making a structural monolith of the whole, thusin another way, typifying unity.” 18 Wright’s uncle, the reverend Jenkin LloydJones, the leading Unitarian in Chicago, praised Unity Temple as “one solidmonolith. It is not only built on a rock but it is a rock-built church.” 19 In thisway, concrete allowed Wright to achieve both the most modern integratedconstruction and the most ancient sacred foundation. Even Wright, perhaps the most gifted maker of form in modern times, was unable to foresee completely the liberative spatial potential of monolithicreinforced concrete construction. As can be seen in the difference betweenthe final construction drawings and the building as realized, Wright’s concep- tion of the interior wood trim details of Unity Temple changed—from “fram- ing” edges and corners to “folding” across and around them—remarkablylate, in fact only occurring during construction itself. Today this “folding” effect is so important to our experience of Unity Temple that we can hardlyimagine it was not part of Wright’s original conception. Yet this is one ofnumerous examples of Wright continuing to design during construction, inthis case seeking a way to express the almost limitless potential of reinforcedconcrete to shape space. [ 7 ] Having achieved such a perfect synthesis in Unity Temple, it is interest- ing to note that Wright remained critical of concrete as a building material. While the walls of Unity Temple were cast in repetitively- used wooden forms, Wright noted the inherent lack of constructive order or “unit system” in cast- in-place concrete, and sought a more direct revelation of the constructionmodule and the rhythm of the (necessarily) hidden steel reinforcing bars— the internal balance between the tensile (steel) and the compressive (con- crete) components. It is hardly coincidental that in 1906, the same year that constructionbegan on Unity Temple, Wright designed the Harry Brown House project, which he would later title “the first block house”—the concrete block systemof construction appears here fully articulated. In 1908, as Unity Temple wasbeing completed, Wright wrote: “As for the future—the work shall grow moretruly simple; more expressive with fewer lines, fewer forms; more articulate withless labor; more plastic; more fluent, although more coherent; more organic. Itshall grow not only to fit more perfectly the methods and processes that arecalled upon to produce it, but shall further find whatever is lovely or of goodrepute in method or process, and idealize it.”20 [ 8 ] Before Wright was able to employ his concrete block system, he wouldreturn to employing concrete in hybrid construction systems, in such build- ings as the Midway Gardens, Chicago, Illinois of 1913, which had reinforced Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 9 10 9Exterior of Midway Gardens, Chicago, Illinois, 1913, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photo copyrightFLW Archives. 10Interior of Millard House, “La Miniatura,” LosAngeles, California, 1923, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photo by author. 21Ibid., p.201. 22Wright, An Autobiography, op. cit., p.265. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete concrete cast into hollow brick and concrete masonry piers and walls, rein- forced concrete floors, and concealed steel trusses spanning the largest interi- or volume, the Winter Garden. At the Midway Gardens we also find Wright’sfirst extensive use of patterned precast concrete masonry blocks. The Imperi- al Hotel, Tokyo, Japan, of 1917–21 employed reinforced concrete cast intohollow cut stone and brick walls, with reinforced concrete floors and beams. [ 9 ] Yet Wright yearned to again engage reinforced concrete as a monolithicmaterial. He employed reinforced concrete in the 1910 Universal PortlandCement Exhibit structure in New York’s Madison Square Garden, and pro- posed it for the unbuilt 1912 project for the San Francisco CallPress building. The Barnsdall “Hollyhock” House, Olive Hill, Los Angeles, California, of 1919 was intended by Wright to be built in cast reinforced concrete, likeUnity Temple. Whether this was ever a real possibility, or simply Wright’shope, is not clear. In any event, the house was actually built using wood studsand stucco, wood roof beams, and precast concrete decorative elements. Wright’s frustration in not being able to build this project in the material ofhis choice may be sensed in the caption he placed under a photograph of oneof the wood and stucco Barnsdall buildings on Olive Hill, published in theJuly 1928 issue of Architectural Record, which misleadingly reads “Glass andconcrete.” 21 Upon his return from Japan and the completion of the Imperial Hotel, Wright built four houses in Los Angeles, each constructed using his “concreteblock system:” the Millard House, the Storer House, the Ennis House, and theFreeman House, all completed in 1923. “We would take the despised outcast ofthe building industry—the concrete block—out from underfoot or from thegutter—find a hitherto unexpected soul in it—make it live as a thing of beauty—textured like the trees. All we would have to do would be to educate the con- crete block, refine it and knit it together with steel in the joints and so constructthe joints that they could be poured full of concrete after they were set up andsteel strand laid in them. The walls would thus become thin but solid reinforcedslabs and yield to any desire for form imaginable. And common labor could doit all. We would make the walls double, of course, one wall facing inward andthe other facing outward, thus getting continuous hollow spaces between, so thehouse would be cool in summer, warm in winter, and dry always.”22 [ 10 ] Wright did not mention the horizontal structure of floors and roofs inthis description, for in these first concrete block houses they were construct- ed in wood, and thus constituted hybrid, not monolithic structures. YetWright had achieved his intent to give a “unit system,” a construction mod- ule, to reinforced concrete, by turning it into an extraordinarily flexible Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 11 11Interior of Storer House, Los Angeles, California, 1923, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photo byauthor. 23Wright, Writings and Buildings, op. cit., p.225. 24Wright, In the Cause of Architecture, op. cit., p.205–208. 25Ibid., p.209–210. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete masonry unit. “I finally had found simple mechanical means to produce a com- plete building that looks the way the machine made it, as much as any fabricneed look. Tough, light, but not thin; imperishable; plastic; no necessary lieabout it anywhere and yet machine-made, mechanically perfect. Standardiza- tion as the soul of the machine here for the first time may be seen in the hand ofthe architect, put squarely up to imagination, the limits of imagination the onlylimits of building.” 23[ 11 ] Despite this second success, Wright remained critical of reinforced con- crete as a monolithic building material, and he touched upon the reason inpraising the material, above, noting that it will “yield to any desire for formimaginable.” In 1928, 20 years after the completion of Unity Temple, 5 yearsafter completion of the California concrete block houses, and during con- struction of the concrete block Lloyd Jones House in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Wright made the following scathing critique of reinforced concrete: Aesthetically [concrete] has neither song nor story. Nor is it easy to see inthis conglomerate, this mud pie, a high aesthetic property, because, in itself it isan amalgam, aggregate, compound. And cement, the binding medium, is char- acterless.” “Here in a conglomerate named concrete we find a plastic materialthat as yet has found no medium of expression that will allow it to take plasticform.” “[Concrete’s] form is a matter of this process of casting rather thana matter of anything at all derived from its own nature.”24 Wright’s design process, as we have seen, involved the engagement ofthe character—the nature—of the materials in the experience of space. ThusWright’s condemnation of reinforced concrete as being bereft of character, scale and rhythm—the essential aspects necessary for architectural design ashe defined it—makes his continued efforts to employ concrete all the moreilluminating. His reasons? “I should say that in this plasticity of concrete lies itsaesthetic value… And there remain to be developed those higher values—non- mechanical, plastic in method, treatment and mass.”25 Wright himself had indicated the danger that awaited him in using rein- forced concrete in this entirely “plastic” way—without the benefit of theordering systems he had developed in Unity Temple and the concrete blockhouses—when he noted above that, in using reinforced concrete, “the limitsof imagination” are “the only limits of building.” Wright experimented with a variety of geometries in his effort to har- ness the unlimited form-making potential of reinforced concrete as a con- struction material. In his 1924 design for the “Automobile Objective” on Sug- arloaf Mountain, Maryland, he first employed the spiral to house a planetari- um within an automobile ramp. In 1943, Wright began working on the com- mission for the Guggenheim Museum in New York City. Five years later, in1948, his V. C. Morris Store was built on Maiden Lane in San Francisco, and Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 12 13 14 15 12Exterior of Guggenheim Museum, New York, NewYork, 1943-59, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photocopyright FLW Archives. 13Interior of Guggenheim Museum, New York, NewYork, 1943-59, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photocopyright FLW Archives. 14Huntington Hartford Resort project, Los Angeles, California, 1947, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Drawing copyright FLW Archives. 15Marin County Civic Center, San Rafael, California, 1957, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photograph byauthor. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete this spiral concrete ramp contained in an urbane brick box is one of his mostintriguing designs. While it is clearly a precursor for the Guggenheim, at leastin its interior experience, it is also a hybrid construction, with the brick act- ing to scale and measure the concrete ramp. After more than a dozen years of design, Wright’s Guggenheim Museumbegan construction in 1956, and was not completed until after his death in1959. During its design, Wright’s struggles to find the appropriate form maybe noted in a series of designs proposed to be built of concrete, but clad ineither red or white marble, with the ramping volume contracting or expand- ing, octagonal or circular. The final design, a ramp that gently expands as onemoves up it, culminating in a skylight, was conceived by Wright as a self-sup- porting reinforced concrete spiral—something like a spring. As built, theGuggenheim Museum employs a series of piers that are cleverly concealed onthe exterior and from the initial view upwards upon entry. The ramps of theGuggenheim were built of reinforced concrete, but its walls were not cast informs, rather concrete was sprayed onto a metal lath in the form of the spiral- ing exterior curve. [ 12 ][ 13 ] A series of projects Wright proposed to be built in reinforced concreteshow a steady deterioration of his own design principles, eroded by the limit- less form-making capacity of concrete. The enormous foundations of the V. C. Morris House, designed for a cliff-side in San Francisco, make a mockeryof the subtlety of the buttresses hidden in the shadow of Fallingwater’s can- tilevers. The series of drawings for the Huntington Hartford Resort, designedfor the arid canyons beyond Hollywood, are among Wright’s most beautiful. But the designs, when studied, are shockingly disengaged from their naturalenvironment. The main clubhouse, where water from the pools is made tospill into the arid canyon below, is a particularly arrogant gesture, seeming toconsist of a set of “flying saucers” only temporarily moored to themountaintop—a location heretofore always avoided by Wright in preferencefor building into the hill, never on its top. [ 14 ] The Arthur Miller House project of 1957, the Greek Orthodox Churchin Wauwatosa of 1957, the Grady Auditorium at the University of Arizona of1957, and the Ellis Island proposal of 1959 all exhibit Wright’s unfetteredimagination characteristic of his later work in reinforced concrete. Perhapsthe most disappointing design of this period in Wright’s career is the MarinCounty Civic Center of 1957. Begun with one of Wright’s greatest site designs—to build the civic center as a bridge between the hill-tops, recalling theancient Roman aqueducts—Wright inexplicably decorated, rather than con- structed, the building’s exterior, employing false arches that render the builtwork a parody of his own brilliant initial concept. [ 15 ] Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 16 17 18 19 16Hoult Usonian House project, 1936, Frank LloydWright, architect. Drawing copyright FLWArchives. 17Interior, Jacobs House, Madison, Wisconsin, 1936, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photo by author. 18Exterior of “Fallingwater,” Kaufmann House, MillRun, Pennsylvania, 1935, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photograph by author. 19Interior of Taliesin West, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1937, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photographcopyright FLW Archives. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete The conclusion I will draw from all this might best be titled, “limits and theimagination.” The almost total lack of spatial order, human scale, and formalcontrol, which characterizes Wright’s late public buildings and more extrava- gant private commissions, is unquestionably related to the unlimited formalcapacity and lack of modular order of the reinforced concrete used in theirconstruction—characteristics he himself had identified as early as 1928. Inmany of these cases, Wright seemed unwilling or unable to impose his ownlimitations upon either his imagination or this inherently order-less methodof construction. Meanwhile, the balance of invention, order and scale maintained byWright’s Usonian Houses designed in the same period must be related to themodular order characteristic of their major materials: concrete block, brick, and wood. Only when he combined reinforced concrete with modularmaterials— or turned reinforced concrete into a modular material—wasWright able to attain the same balance in his larger buildings that he continu- ally achieved in the Usonian Houses. [ 16 ][ 17 ] The National Insurance Company, designed for a site on MichiganAvenue in 1923—the same year as the California concrete block houses werein construction—is perhaps the first true “curtain wall” high-rise, with rein- forced concrete columns and floors cantilevering out from a central core tocarry a copper and glass skin. This design was the basis for all of Wright’s lat- er high-rise designs, including St. Marks in New York of 1929, the JohnsonWax Research Tower in Racine of 1944, and the Price Tower in Bartlesville, Oklahoma of 1952. A particularly elegant and effective use of reinforced concrete ina hybrid construction is the great Fallingwater, Edgar Kaufmann’s house inBear Run, Pennsylvania, designed in 1935 when Wright was age 68. The dia- logue between the vertical rock walls and horizontal concrete slabs of thehouse, echoing that between the rocks and water of the falls, makes the wholeexperience of inhabitation perhaps the most powerful of modern times. [ 18 ] At Taliesin West, begun by Wright outside Scottsdale, Arizona in 1937, Wright develops a completely different way of using concrete to engage thenatural site. Deriving from a 1928 project for a small house Wright designedfor himself in the Mojave Desert, Taliesin West is constructed massive “desertstone” walls, with boulders from the site were stacked in forms and cast inunreinforced concrete. These support the wooden framed folded roofs, cladin canvas that could originally be opened using sailing cords and pulleys, tobe changed as a part of the annual migration from north to south of the Fel- lowship. [ 19 ] Wright’s 1938 Anne Pfeiffer Chapel, part of Florida Southern College, employs concrete blocks at the base, where pedestrians originally engaged Tectonics and the Grammar of ProgramRobert McCarter 20 20Interior of Johnson Wax Building, Racine, Wisconsin, 1936, Frank Lloyd Wright, architect. Photograph by author. 26Kenneth Frampton, “The Johnson Wax Build- ings and the Angel of History,” introduction toFrank Lloyd Wright and the Johnson Wax Build- ings, Jonathan Lipman (New York” Rizzoli, 1986), p.xii. 27Wright, The Future of Architecture, op. cit., p.62. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete their delicately scaled patterns in the shadow of the citrus trees, while thesmooth, rendered concrete walls rose above the trees to capture the sunlightand announce the campus within the grove. The chapel’s two forms of rein- forced concrete make the building something we might call a monolith- ic hybrid. The Beth Sholom Synagogue, built in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania in 1954, develops a similar dialogue between base and top, but is experienced asa place made between the reinforced concrete base, set into the ground andcontaining the seating, and the plastic, glass and metal roof structure risinglike a great tent above the congregation. Finally, in addition to the use of brick and glass tubing “masonry,” theexcellence of the Johnson Wax Building, Racine, Wisconsin, of 1936, origi- nates in the fact that its reinforced concrete columns are themselves cast asmodular repetitive elements, rather than as part of a monolithic mass. Thisbuilding, which Kenneth Frampton has rightly called the greatest work ofAmerican art of the 20th century, 26 epitomizes Wright’s best work in rein- forced concrete—work where concrete is engaged in a dialogue with other, modular materials, and where concrete itself becomes modular. [ 20 ] In conclusion, we recognize the critical importance of limitations inWright’s work: the Usonian Houses’ inherent economic, material and spatiallimits are the reason they remain more true to Wright’s own principles thandid his larger later commissions. When monolithic reinforced concrete wasemployed, only Wright’s self-imposed limitations could insure that his ownfundamental principles would be honored. In 1937, while Fallingwater andthe Johnson Wax Building were in construction, Wright spoke of the positivepower of economy, the beauty of the minimal, the need for limits, and theirrelation to the imagination: “The human race built most nobly when limita- tions were greatest and, therefore, when most was required of imagination inorder to build at all. Limitations seem to have always been the best friends ofarchitecture.” 27 Biographies Christopher Bardt is an architect, theorist, artist, writer and professor of architecture. He is a founding principal (with Kyna Leski) of 3sixŘ Architecture, named by ArchitecturalRecord as one of 10 leading vanguard firmsworldwide in 2002. His extensive professionalexperience includes residential, commercial andinstitutional commissions, furniture design, andplanning studies ranging from small urban inter- ventions to large-scale metropolitandevelopment. His research, drawings, writing and arti- facts based on the geometry of sunlight, materi- als, materiality and tectonics as critical to archi- tectural making and thinking has been widelypublished and exhibited worldwide. In 2019 MITPress published his book, Material and Mind, a cross-disciplinary investigation of how ourengagement with materials and physical sur- roundings are formative of thought and imagina- tion. Chris’s new book The Feeling of Space, released in 2024 by MIT Press, aims to recoverthe lived physicality of space from its defaultreductive isomorphic and Cartesianconceptualization. Bardt has been a member of the Architec- ture faculty at RISD since 1988. His pedagogicalinnovations center on introducing architecturestudents to an artists’ or material- based designprocess in the development of architectural think- ing at the intersection of poetic sensibility andsensuous reasoning. He has taught upper-levelstudios, architectural history, the history and the- ory of projective geometry and foundation cours- es and has coordinated and authored the curricu- lum of the three core semesters. Notably he ledthe development of the celebrated drawing cur- riculum, which fuses digital and physical (hand) approaches to architectural drawing. Chris has been a visiting professor at Cor- nell University, the National Academy of Designand Art, Slovakia and the China Academy of Artand an appointed member of the Board of Gover- nors of the RISD Museum. He has served as anexternal examiner at the Chinese University ofHong Kong, and PHD dissertation panelist atMcGill University, and the Aarhus School ofArchitecture. Bardt holds a BArch from RISD anda M.Arch from Harvard University. In 2017 Chriswas honored with a lifetime achievement awardfor his design work and inducted into the RIDesign Hall of Fame. Anne Beim is Professor in Architecture at theRoyal Danish Academy — School of Architecture. She holds a M.Arch. and a Ph.D. in archi- tecture from the Royal Danish Academy School ofArchitecture. As a visiting research fellow 1995–96, shestudied under late Professor Marco Frascari andProfessor David Leatherbarrow at University ofPennsylvania. Since 2004 she has led CINARK — Centerfor Industrialized Architecture at the Royal DanishAcademy School of Architecture and since 2014, she has (co)chaired the graduate program: SET — Settlement, Ecology and Tectonics. Her researchtopics are — Ecology in architecture, tectonics, material studies, building culture, theories/ prac- tices of building culture. She has written books, essays, and scien- tific articles on the theme of tectonic ecologies, the history of building technology and visionaryarchitecture. Her books include among the manypublished: Selected books (co)authored: Biobased Materials Tectonics Architecture (2025), Innovation of Nothing (2023), Biogenic Construc- tion: Materials, Architecture & Tectonics (2023), Circular Construction: Materials, Architecture& Tectonics (2019), Towards an Ecology of Tecton- ics (2015), Tectonic Visions in Architecture (2004). Also, she has led research that has receivedawards for their originality: Deserta EcoFolie (withCurators Pedro Alonso & Pamela Prado), TheVenice Biennale of Architecture, 2025. (AnneBeim et al.), UIA’s Jean Tschumi Prize for Architec- tural Writing and Critique, 2023, AR FutureProjects Awards 2023 – Research and designprize. (Anne Beim et al., Trienal de Arquitectura deLisbon — Research University Award, 2022. (Anne Beim et al.) Matej Blenkuš is a full professor at the Faculty ofArchitecture, University of Ljubljana. Since 2012, he has been teaching his own design studio. Until2024, he taught the course Structures 2, and laterthe course Building and Technology 2. He leadsthe architectural office studio abiro in Ljubljana, has 25 years of experience in architectural design, and has received several national and internation- al awards for his work. Through his teaching andcreative practice, he explores the relationshipsbetween building structure, architectural space, and the articulation of meaning. Between 2017and 2023, he served as dean of the faculty. Nicholas Boyarsky is an architect, teacher andwriter. He studied at the Architectural AssociationSchool of Architecture in London and completedhis practice- based PhD at RMIT University in2016. He is Professor of Architecture at RMIT Uni- versity where he supervises practice researchPhD candidates in Europe and Asia. He is a part- ner of the London- based studio Boyarsky MurphyArchitects. Before starting BMA he worked forZaha Hadid, Michael Hopkins, and Rem Koolhaasand Stefano de Martino. He has lectured andtaught at many European, North American andAsian schools of architecture and is the author ofnumerous articles and publications. He isa founding member of the Asian-based UrbanFlashes network. Current areas of interest includevisual urbanism, ephemera, inflatable architec- tures, and architectures of memorial. Through hisinvolvement in the development of the AlvinBoyarsky Archive he has facilitated and organisedseminars, events, publications and the travellingexhibition Drawing Ambience: Alvin Boyarsky andthe Architectural Association, curated by JanHoward and Igor Marjanovic. Nathaniel Coleman, PhD, MSc, MUP/UrbanDesign, BARCH, BFA is a workshop facilitator, educational consultant, author, and architecturaldesigner. He facilitates workshops using architec- tural frameworks to support individuals’ develop- ing capacities for managing structures andupwards management, so they can begin solvingcomplex problems by thinking differently andmore openly about them, achieved in settingsencouraging organised play and openexperimentation. Working for over 30 years as an architec- ture academic, more than 22 of them at Newcas- tle University, UK, where he was Reader in Histo- ry and Theory of Architecture, his Masters designstudios were laboratories of continuous experi- mentation investigating the invention of anarchistspatial practices. His books include Recoding ArchitecturePedagogy: Insurgency and Invention (2025); Mate- rials and Meaning in Architecture: Essays on theBodily Experience in Building (2020); Lefebvre forArchitects (2015), and Utopias and Architecture( 2005). Other publications include numerousbook chapters and journal articles. Nathaniel alsopresents his research internationally. Patrick Doan is an Associate Professor at theSchool of Architecture at Virginia Tech. He holdsa Master of Architecture from Virginia Tech anda Bachelor of Environmental Design from TexasA&M University. His teaching and scholarship interestsfocus on architecture’s constructive nature as itrelates to the measure and play of detail, craft, poetics, and placemaking. This work has beenpresented and exhibited at national and interna- tional conferences and exhibitions. Selected pub- lications include: ‘Proximity Within Distance’ inthe book Lewerentz Fragments (ACTAR, 2021), “What Lies Beneath the Surface” in the BuildingTechnology Educators’ Society Conference Pro- ceedings (2017), and “Construction Curtains” inthe book Center 19: Curtains (University of Texas: Center for Architecture and Design, 2014.) In 2016, Patrick received the Association ofCollegiate Schools of Architecture Design BuildAward along with colleagues William Gallowayand Frank Weiner. He is the recipient of severalawards at Virginia Tech including the UniversityCertificate for Teaching Excellence (2017) and theJ. Stoeckel Design Lab Teaching ExcellenceAward (2017.) He is a registered architect in Virginia andTexas, holds an NCARB Certificate, and maintainsan architectural practice, barker doan architects, with partner Meredith Doan. Maja Dobnik graduated with a master’s degree inarchitectural theory from the Faculty of Architec- ture, University of Ljubljana. She works in the fieldof architectural theory and criticism, focusing onsocial infrastructures in space. Her researchexplores the relationship between architectureand social practices and the role of architecturein shaping community spaces. She is based at theCentre for Creativity within the Museum of Archi- tecture and Design in Ljubljana. Orsolya Gáspár is an assistant professor of archi- tecture at the Stuckeman School, Penn State Uni- versity. She holds an MSc in architecture anda PhD in historical structures from the BudapestUniversity of Technology and Economics (BME), Hungary. She was a Visiting Fellow at the FormFinding Lab, Princeton University in 2023. Herresearch focuses on structurally informed archi- tectural design. Leveraging emerging technolo- gies and methodologies, she endeavors to main- tain a dynamic dialogue between historical prece- dents and contemporary approaches. Her workappeared in journals and edited volumes such asthe International Journal of Architectural Heritage, Architecture, Structures and Construction andCold War Interactions (Bloomsbury). Mark Jarzombek (1954- ) is professor of the his- tory and theory of architecture at MIT, where hehas been teaching since 1995. Before that (1987- 1994) he was teaching at Cornell University. Hegot his architectural diploma at the E.T.H. inZurich (1980), where he also had a small practicefor about a year. He is the author of numerousbooks on a wide range of topics ranging frommodern architecture, digital philosophy to globalhistory. His most recent book is Architecture Con- structed: Notes on a Discipline (Bloomsbury, 2023) that studies the fraught history of the archi- tecture / contractor divide. With VikramadityaPrakash (professor at the University of Washing- ton, Seattle) he founded the Global ArchitectureHistory Teaching Collaborative to help solve thecrisis of teaching in the expanded field. In 2020, also with Prakash, he cofounded the Office of(Un)certainty Research. Their work has been fea- tured in two Venice Architecture Biennales andelsewhere. O(U)R focuses on the unsteady rela- tionships between humans and cosmos. Line Kjćr Frederiksen, born in Copenhagen in1986, is an assistant professor, cand.arch. at theRoyal Danish Academy, School of Architecture, from which she holds a PhD. Line currently teach- es at the internationally recognized master pro- gram Extreme Environments and is affiliated withthe research center Center for Material Studies. For the past ten years her research has focusedon circular economy in architecture, biogenic andreused materials, ecology, and tectonics of disas- sembly in industrialized building systems asstrategies for increasing sustainability in the builtenvironment. Line has co-edited and contributedto several publications and books of which thelatest is “Biogenic Materials, Tectonics and Archi- tecture- Three perspectives on biogenic materialsproperties and their use in construction”, 2025. Robert McCarter is a practicing architect, author, and Ruth and Norman Moore Professor of Archi- tecture at Washington University in St. Louissince 2007. He has also taught at the University ofFlorida, Columbia University, and at six otherinstitutions in the US, Netherlands, Peru, and Italy. During his 38 years in academia, McCarter hastaught at least one design studio every semester, and he has taught more than 2,000 students. Hehas had his own architectural practice since 1982, in New York, Florida and St. Louis, with twenty- five realized buildings. He is the author of twenty- five published books to date, including A Momentin the Sun: Robert Ernest’s Brief but Brilliant Life inArchitecture (2023); Louis I. Kahn (2nd edition2022); Place Matters: The Architecture of WGClark (2019); Grafton Architects (2018); MarcelBreuer (2016); The Space Within: Interior Experi- ence as the Origin of Architecture (2016); StevenHoll (2015); Aldo van Eyck (2015); HermanHertzberger (2015); Alvar Aalto (2014); CarloScarpa (2013); Understanding Architecture: A Primer on Architecture as Experience (2012, withJuhani Pallasmaa); Louis I. Kahn (2005), and FrankLloyd Wright (1997). Among other awards andhonors, the curators of the 2018 Venice Biennaleof Architecture selected McCarter as an Interna- tional Exhibitor, and his exhibit was entitled “Free- space in Place: Four Unrealized Modern Architec- tural Designs for Venice; Carlo Scarpa’s Quattroprogetti per Venezia Revisited;” and he wasnamed one of the “Ten Best Architecture Teach- ers in the US” in December 2009. Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, born 1981, is a trainedarchitect, Cand. Arch, and current industrial PhDfellow at the architectural firm Henning Larsenand CINARK, Center for Industrialised Architec- ture at The Royal Danish Academy in Copen- hagen. With a background as a lead design archi- tect, Magnus has, over the past 15 years, focusedon developing projects with a curious, explorato- ry, and value- based approach. Construction tech- niques, resources and sustainability have beena central theme in many of the projects Magnushas led. His research in the PhD-project stemsfrom the same comprehensive interest in imple- menting increased awareness and ethics in archi- tectural practice. This includes, among otherthings, investigations of existing buildings' diverseinherent values, and development of approachesto adapt and transform them for new purposesthat can both create new relevance and anchor- ing to the place. Anne-Catrin Schultz is a German- born architect, architectural historian, and author. Anne-Catrinwrites about historic and contemporary tectonics, exploring the links between technology, perfor- mance, and culture. Her primary field of researchis the work of the Italian architect Carlo Scarpaand the phenomenon of layering in architecture. Her book publications include "Carlo Scarpa– Layers" and “Time, Space and Material–TheMechanics of Layering in Architecture,” exploringlayering as a non-hierarchical framework fora continuously changing architectural environ- ment. Tracing the boundaries between reality andimagination, the book “Real and Fake inArchitecture–Close to the Original, Far fromAuthenticity” was published with Menges Edi- tions in 2020. More recently, the impact of tech- nology, politics, and social change on architectur- al production has been the focus of Anne-Catrin’sresearch and writings. She is a member of theeditorial board of Technology|Architecture+Design (TAD) anda council member of the International Organiza- tion for Structures and Architecture (IASA). Aleš Vodopivec, arhitekt. Poleg pedagoškegadela na Fakulteti za arhitekturo v Ljubljani, rednoobjavlja strokovne in znanstvene prispevke. Avtorali urednik knjig: Arhitektura Ljubljane, Ab, 1974; Iz arhitekture (z J. Koželj) – Vprašanja umetnostigradnje, Krt 48, 1987; Edvard Ravnikar, Umetnostin arhitektura, Zbornik esejev, Slovenska matica, 2007, ponatis 2021; Edvard Ravnikar – Architectand Teacher (z R. Žnidaršic), Springer, 2010. Priz- nanja za arhitekturna dela: nagrada Prešernovegasklada, nagrada Piranesi, Plecnikova nagrada, triPlecnikove medalje, Platinasti svincnik, Zlatisvincnik in Patinasti svincnik ZAPS ter Ernst A. Plischke Preis. James Williamson studied at Cranbrook Acade- my of Art and the Architectural Association. Hehas won numerous design and teaching awards, including a first place in the Shinkenchiku Com- petition, an ACSA design award, three GrahamFoundation grants, the Martin Dominguez Distin- guished Teaching Award from Cornell University, and the Reconocimiento Escpeical por ExcelenciaDocente from the Universidad de Puerto Rico. Williamson has taught at Georgia Tech, Harvard, and at Cornell where he directed theMaster and Bachelor of Architecture programs. He has held invited professorships at RISD, Cooper Union, Columbia, Rice, and WashingtonUniversity among others. Between 2016–2021 hewas Dean of College of Architecture at TexasTech University. Williamson worked with John Hejduk onThe House of The Suicide and The House of TheMother of the Suicide constructing these projectson five different sites. He co-edited The ReligiousImagination in Modern and Contemporary Archi- tecture with Renata Hejduk, and is presently com- pleting The Ethical Mirror: Architecture, Dissi- dence and the Radical Imagination with RenataHejduk, Steven Hillyer and Kim Skapich. Abstracts Faber Tignarium: Gravity Unleashed Mark Jarzombek Keywords: tectonics, baukunst, contractor, Gotfried Semper, Leon Battista Alberti, MarinCounty civic center, Mortensrud church, Oslo The word tectonics is ubiquitous in the studio where it is deployed mostly with littletheoretical resonance to point to the designer’s commitment to careful detailing. It isusually evoked as a coded reference to the ethos of the carpenter. In this paper I am notgoing to engage these theoretical implications or historical resonances, but rather dig moredeeply into the related concept, faber tignarium, a phrase introduced by Leon BattistaAlberti in his treatise on architecture. Faber tignarium means ‘maker of beams,’ but gottranslated in the Joseph Rykwert edition as ‘carpenter.’ Alberti makes it clear that fabertignarium is not an architect, but little more than a glorified laborer. But to reclaim the spaceof the faber tignarium is also to reclaim its traditional locus, namely ‘the roof.’ There is, afterall, a big diRerence between ‘maker of beams’ and a maker of furniture. In order to bring theissue of the roof out of hiding, I will discuss some well know structures like the Mies van derRohe’s National Gallery (1968) and Benedetta Tagliabue’s Santa Caterina Market ofBarcelona (2005) to less well-known projects like Cinthia Marcelle’s installation at theMuseum of Modern Art in San Francisco (2019) and Diane Simpson’s fusion of roofstructure and clothing design. Instead of seeing the roof as something that provides shelteror as something that simply spans a space that is dictated by walls, I want to celebrate thecreative and conceptual space of the faber tignarium as a point of resistance to thehegemony of program, plan and wall. I will orient the conversation in particular to thesomething that could be thought of as an anti-gravity poetics, where the solution does notreside in utopian bubbles but rather in the craft of making gravity seem to disappear. Thepaper thus reimagines the tension not just between architect and engineer, but alsobetween the visible and the invisible, given that the ‘optics’ of roofs are inevitably frombelow, and thus inevitably opposite from the optics of the architect which tends to be fromabove. Steps Towards Negative Tectonics Nathaniel Coleman Keywords: Tectonics, Frampton, Negative Dialectics, Adorno Reflecting on tectonics is impossible without thinking about its ideation by KennethFrampton, which, despite the quasi-mysticism of Frascari’s ‘Tell-the-Tale Detail’, or PeterRice’s structural expressionism (especially as manifested in Piano’s best work), is how mostarchitecture students, practitioners, and educators come to and deploy ideas of a poetics of construction. If Frampton’s conception of tectonics ostensibly resists architecture’s dissolution bycapitalist production, programming mostly speaks the language of that dissolution. Like function (orfunctionalism), modernity typically limits program by over systematization (even without informatics, algorithms, or parametric design). Likewise, despites its claims, Tschumi’s ‘disprogramming’ fallswithin the systematizing orbit of programming, similarly Koolhaas’ performative indeterminateness. Atbest, tectonics and programming suggest a negative dialectical tension, impossible to resolve butworth pursuing. At worst, tectonics and programming are two sides of architecture’s systematizinghabits paralleling the long erasure of its disciplinary status as a liberal profession. As argued in the proposed paper, instead of liberating architecture, Frampton’s attempt to preciselydefine the parameters of tectonic resistance, as prerequisite for architecture’s redemption, disablesthe concept, and the architecture that follows, ensnaring both within the ambit of totalizing system, ensuring results more programmatic than de-systematizing. Mary McLeod offers a clue to the geneticdefect of Frampton’s coinage of tectonics, as commonly deployed in architecture: “Frampton seems tobe searching for a logic (and, in his case, an aesthetic vision) that would embrace the paradoxes oftwo seemingly disparate worldviews [phenomenology and Marxism] in his search for reservoirs ofresistance against the onslaught of ‘commodity culture’ and the ‘imperatives of production.’”1 Accepting McLeod’s reading, Frampton’s search “for a logic”, to construct “an aesthetic vision” resistant to architecture’s capture by the culture and building industries depends on his embrace ofthe “seemingly disparate worldviews” of “phenomenology and Marxism.”2 However, generally, butespecially as performed by architects (practitioners, teachers, students), the two are joined bytotalizing visions. While Marxist tendencies toward absoluteness are familiar enough, phenomenologymostly evades such badging, perhaps because architectural phenomenology largely presumes thecontinuity of an unfallen golden age across every rupturing catastrophe, which sets it Right of center, in contrast to Marxism’s Left of center positioning. However, as Foucault concludes, “thephenomenological method certainly wants to account for everything, whether it be to do with thecogito or with what precedes reflection, with what ‘is already there’ when the cogito is activated; inthis sense, it is clearly a totalising method.”3 Arguably, Frampton’s continuous desire to construct thelogic of an aesthetic vision requires him to attempt to “account for everything” in totalizing fashion, akin to Marx, Marxism, and Marxists. In his effort to resist capitalist maximalization Frampton defaultsto programming solutions too ensnared within the very constellations of thought and action he wishesto resist and overcome. Foucault provides a route away from tectonics and program in his assertion “that from the momentone cannot describe everything, it is through the concealing the cogito, in a way putting aside thatfirst illusion of the cogito, that we can see emerging entire systems of relation that otherwise wouldnot be describable”; including for example the associability of phenomenology and Marxism assimultaneously conservative and totalizing in their nostalgic programmatic aspirations.4 If one aim of the proposed paper is to argue that rather than liberating architecture, Frampton’stectonics formulation ensnares it within totalizing system – inevitably disabling the concept and thearchitecture following from it, another is to recuperate tectonics by rescuing it from programmaticMarxism and phenomenology alike. The first steps towards a negative tectonics include admittingcatastrophe and fragmentation rather than denying either, informed by Adorno’s negative dialectics asa tactic for continuously thinking thought against itself (in theory and practice), to avoid the resolvingtendencies of Frampton’s tectonic ambition. Beginning with the complexities of Adorno’s propositionthat writing “poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”, the comforts of phenomenology and program in theirtectonic and technocratic guises can be abandoned to begin working in the fallen world as it is, guided by desires for alternative relationships, anticipatorily illuminating elusive revolution.5 A negative tectonic foregoes illusions of continuity without renouncing use (bodies orgravity), while disavowing autonomy myths. The persisting political context of architecture’sproduction implicates it in making and maintaining brutal inequalities, including despoilingthe planet, confirming the persisting significance of Adorno’s thinking for working in andthrough catastrophe by foregoing repetition in favor of reconstruction, while surrenderingall prospects of resolution, if not desires for it. 1Mary McLeod, “Frampton in Frame”, Architecture Today, 16Nov. 2020. Available online at: https://architecturetoday.co.uk/frampton-in-frame/ 2Ibid. 3Michel Foucault, “Who are you, Professor Foucault?” (1967), Lucille Cairns (trans.), in Religion and Culture, New York: Routledge, 1999, p. 93. 4Ibid. 5Theodor W. Adorno, “Cultural Criticism and Society” (1949), Samuel and Shierry Weber (trans.) in Prisms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967, p. 34. The Thinning Space of ArchitectureAI Image Generation and the Reversal of Design Logic Anne-Catrin Schultz Keywords: Tectonics Digital Design Process, Architecture Syntax, ArchitectureHistory/theory Architectural production in the 21st century is facing a profound reversal of the role oftectonics in architecture. The architectural perspective and rendering used to be producedat the end of the design process to give clients a "view" of the project. With the arrival ofgenerative AI models, these images are moving to the forefront, guiding the design processfrom the beginning. Starting with an image, the syntactic connection between structureand expression has to be constructed, developing the substance of the form of spaces andfacades represented in the initial representations. A design concept’s abstraction and thebuilding’s principles have to be deduced from a realistic or semi-realistic graphic. This essay explores the changing relationship between the image and the notion oftectonics in architecture, highlighting the flattening of space and the resulting loss ofspatial depth. The analysis concerns changes in the architectural design process and theimpact the sequencing and representation of ideas through images have on the outcome. In parallel, it traces the increasing presence of pictures in the 20th- and 21st-century historyof architecture, embedding more and more literal imagery into architecture. The 19th-century discourse around tectonics in architecture operated on the assumptionthat form and expression emerged as a result of materiality and technology in conjunctionwith its related narrative. The architectural discourse of 19th-century Europe wascharacterized by the polychromy debate led (among others) by German-born Frencharchitect Jacob Ignatius Hittorff. The discovery of paint particles on Greek temples and the subsequently created reconstruction drawings revealed a layered architecture, buildings that sharedstories while also articulating their structural conditions. Architecture was already intimatelyconnected to sculpted images situated on facades illustrating spiritual topics or historic events. At thatsame time, the separation of skin and skeleton was theoretically underpinned by Gottfried Semper’swork, which linked architecture to its textile origins. In Semper’s understanding, the knot connectingtwo pieces of yarn is ultimately the starting point of weaving. It represents the generative element ofthe architectural joint, transferring forces and visualizing them. In his writings, craftsmanship is thedriver of architectural form even in the event of a material change. This overlapping potential ofarchitecture referencing its history (actions or fabrication) and culture set the basis for numerousexpanded interpretations of tectonics developing in the face of globalization and climate change. Theinitial meaning of the term tectonics (frequently linked to the Greek word "Tektonikós") anchored it tothe act of building and joining. Eduard Sekler wrote the following definition of "tectonics" in 1965: "Forthese qualities which are expressive of a relation of form to force, the tectonic should be reserved [...]. Thus structure, the intangible concept, is realized through construction and given expression throughtectonics." (Sekler 1965: 89) [1] Over the following decades, this expression increasingly shifted to images carrying the message ofnot only construction but also of program or product. In the 20th century, an understanding ofavailable products and structural requirements drove the design process for many architects in theWestern world—working within an industrialized construction framework. Postmodern tendenciesturned to the power of the image rather than the mechanics and expression of assembly as aestheticdrivers. Counteracting modernism and its lack of ornament and narrative, postmodern architecture turned tovarious themes, also elevating the image to the scale of architecture. A rising consumerist culture leftits imprint on architecture and the continuing search for appropriate forms. The 21st century isexperiencing a reversal of how architectural syntax is developed. Digital images and their promptsprocessed by AI models stand at the beginning of the conception of buildings. The articulation of thebuilding’s structure, overall materiality, and fabrication follows a representation of the building’sappearance, reversing the process of design and challenging the definition of tectonics. This essaytraces the gradual thinning of architectural structures and skins over the last centuries. It illustrates achanging relationship between architecture and imagery evolving synchronously to the digitization ofthe design process, all of it leading to an overall thinning of architectural space. 1Sekler. E. 1965. “Structure, Construction, Tectonics.” In Structure inArt and Science, edited by G. Kepes. GravitivityArchitecture’s Defiance in a Post-Structural Society Matej Blenkuš, Maja Dobnik Keywords: Gravitivity, Post-structuralism, Temporal Layers, Social Structures, Solid Structures, Architecture’s Defiance The paper deals with the relationship between architecture and contemporary socio-politicalstructures, drawing from the concepts of desiring machines and bodies without organs as developedby Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. The central premise derives from the fact that today, architecture as a socially embedded practice operates in increasingly unstable and unpredictableconditions of global capitalism, where traditional hierarchies and institutional frameworkshave been disintegrating. In such a context, architecture decreasingly relies on stablesystems and increasingly operates in conditions of continuous flow, adaptation, andopenness. We introduce the concept of temporal layers, an analytical tool developed from the divisionof the architectural system into material and functional components with different lifespans. This six-layered structure based on the models proposed by Stewart Brand, Francis Duffyand Dietmar Eberle helps us understand both buildings as systems and their adaptability. This model is challenged in the case of Ljubljana’s Cukrarna Gallery, where the classicalhierarchy of layers is inverted: the programme dictates the structure, and the historical shellturns into an empty supporting surface. Architecture thus enters into a relationship oftension between the past and the present. The paper works to expand the temporal layers to the broader urban context, where itaddresses the phenomena of homelessness and consumerism as expressions of howbodies without organs function in a contemporary city. Rather than discuss them in terms oforder versus chaos, the authors see them cohabiting as two spatial logics that transformurban space. Their shared characteristic is the dismantling of classical temporal andstructural hierarchies: the central solid layers become improvised or displaced, whiledynamic external and internal layers become the only vessels of content and meaning. To allow architecture to maintain its identity, we introduce the concept of gravitivity – aspatial and temporal re-grounding that derives from structural frameworks as a vehicle ofstability and continuity. Gravitivity is a physical as well as symbolic quality that allowsarchitecture to move beyond its current uses and resist being dissolved into the flows ofunpredictable changes in content and appearance, We illustrate this with two examples: the Concrete Tent project by DAAR collective, which transforms a tent – a symbol oftemporariness – into a permanent concrete structure with a collective memory, and DARSoffice building with its exposed structural framework that defines the spatial logic of thebuilding and its resistance to economic and organisational changes. The paper concludesby defining gravitivity as a means of one’s identification with a space as an act of re- grounding and resilience against the dominance of temporal layers, as well as againstdissolution, incorporeity, and dispersion of an existential space into bodies without organs. The Anonymous DetailThe Imaginative Effacement of John Hejduk’s MeasuredDrawings James Williamson This paper proposes to examine the architectural detailing and logics of fabrication of thelate work of the American architect John Hejduk (1929-2000) as these particularly relate tohis Masque Projects. It proposes that Hejduk’s radical reconceptualization of thearchitectural program and his encompassing effort to give form to that program throughdrawing (entailing more than building descriptions, but also stories, poems, characters andvisions) are reliant on an approachable, anonymous logic of assembly and detail employedto construct the imaginative world that Hejduk created. The details and other ‘technical’ drawings are, therefore, to be seen as inseparable from the moreprovocative aspects that Hejduk’s late oeuvre creates and provides an essential grounding for theprojects in a reality that is ultimately transcended. The paper begins with a description of Hejduk’sconstruction drawings as they provide this grounding. It will examine Hejduk’s late work in general butfocus on those projects that Hejduk brought forward for more elaboration in several series of precisemeasured that forward Hejduk’s initial sketches to more complete and finished sets of drawing suchas those for his Berlin Masque or his Lancaster/Hanover Masque. The paper will subsequently compare Hejduk’s methods of representation with the surrealist painterRene Magritte. Magritte, like Hejduk, eschewed an overt display of painterly skill in favor of a moreanonymous - and for this paper’s intentions – more open engagement of the viewers imaginationthereby inviting the viewer into a world filled with the paradoxical and uncertain. The paper willpostulate that this anonymity is essential to both the artist’s and Hejduk’s work and their similarengagement of the viewer as a co-creator in their work and apprehension (or in Hejduk’s case, theconstruction) of their created worlds. Finally, two of Hejduk’s projects will be closely interrogated in the light of this comparison: The Houseof the Suicide and House of the Mother of the Suicide (constructed in Atlanta, Prague, and New York bythe author) and the Museum for Some of the Works of Giacometti. The projects, the former constructedof wood and steel and the latter to be constructed in steel, masonry, and concrete, will be examined interms of their detailing and constructive assembly. An emphasis will be placed on the rather self- effacing ordinariness of these project’s detailing: a representation in contrast to the imagery thatcharacterized Hejduk’s work at this time. As indicated above, this contrast is essential to theirimportance, meaning, and our understanding. The historical circumstances surrounding The House ofthe Suicide and House of the Mother of the Suicide lends even more merit to this argument. The paper concludes by positioning Hejduk’s Masque Projects within a notion of the tectonic as aclear symbolic organization of construction, material and space that Hejduk’s work both adheres toand significantly avoids – His is an architecture that is ultimately not about clarity of construction as italigns with meaning, but as a masked allegory of construction that destabilizes convention vis a visthe tectonic and creates an opening into his invented world of imagination. To Err is Human Orsolya Gaspar Keywords: Tectonics, Materiality, Design Control, Scale, Shells Upon entering on a bright summer day, it takes a couple of seconds to get used to the dim lighting ofthe Rotonda di San Tome and absorb the straightforward tectonic order of this marvel of Romanesquearchitecture north of Bergamo, Italy. The central domical space is defined by a two-level pyramidalstacking of an ambulatory, a gallery on top, and the central void, supported by the external walls andeight columns arranged concentrically on each level. Upon closer inspection, it becomes apparentthat this neat overall tectonic order grows out of total disorder: Each column is different, somecapitals are made of bases of columns from earlier building phases, the stereotomy of the arches isdistinct in each bay, the layers of the stone masonry walls are uneven. Even though we like to speak about "tectonic order," there is not one tectonic order for any construct. As in our example, whether we are discussing columns and arches or the stereotomy thereof matters. Its tectonics is zoomable once a structure is built, from building components to material scale. Today, tectonics feels infinitely zoomable before construction, that is, during the design phase. Thedesigner is entitled and somewhat expected to control tectonics down to the material. Butthis is a relatively new expectation, which has been amplified in the digital era. When SanTome was erected, multiple builders had a formative role in its tectonics, and "design" onlycontrolled the crudest rules. In this text, I am investigating through three historical case studies how the chosen level ofcontrol (or level of zooming in) in the design phase relates to the materiality and how itinfluences the perception of space and the constructability of the building over time. Below, I will refer to the scale of tectonics, which means a certain number of layers of complexity(from the building component down to the material unit). "Scale" is used interchangeablywith "level": i.e., scale of material means on the level of the material unit in the tectoniclayers. All examples discussed below are (loosely interpreted) domical spaces, whichmakes the highest level of tectonics extremely simple. A robust relationship exists betweeneach program and the space (only a few functions require a domical space). Still, theprogram is less consequential for tectonics, and vice versa (as shown below, there aremany ways to construct a domical space). The Rotonda di San Tome is considered here, first and foremost, as a case study of thenecessity for room for error on the material scale when using reclaimed materials. It alsoshowcases how feasibility affects the scale of tectonics considered in the design phase. Inthe early 12th century, when the Rotonda was built, its designers not only reverted todefining the crudest rules because of the uncertain geometric and material properties ofthe available stone but also because recording or passing down anything more was notfeasible. For the Rotonda, the room of error was in the range of inches. In 1922, when designing thesteel gridshell for the dome of the Schott glass factory in Jena, Germany, WaltherBauersfeld operated with a room of error of 1/6 mm down to the material (steel bar) unit. Bauersfeld, widely recognized as the designer of the world's first geodesic dome, gives anaccount in his notebook of an incident during the construction (an alarm caused by themisplacement of a single element) of the dome which proves that this extreme precision(and the associated high-level of control during the design phase) was justified in the then- emerging field of thin shells. Bauersfeld, an engineer of optical devices, had an innate sense for extreme precision. Hewas fortunately biased to aim for such a high level of control and wondrously talented toovercome the limitations of his tools (i.e., pen and paper) deemed rudimentary at its best bytoday's standards. The last example, which focuses on the highest level of tectonics, theshape of the shell, describes a lesser-known thin concrete shell project built in 1967 inHungary. It showcases how bias can also lead to a desire for control not innate to thetectonics, the material, or the construction process. The project was the extension of theKOFEM Factory, which marks a very early use of computers in the history of Hungarianconstruction. While the shells, to the naked eye, look the same as those built in the firstphase five years prior, the addition relies on a more complex geometry and structuralmodel, which necessitated the use of computers for calculations. The lead engineer, LajosKollar, was a brilliant academic and designer: it is hard to dismiss the speculation that thechallenge itself was a big part of the motivation to divert from the original design, maybemore so than pragmatic considerations. The three examples suggest a trend from less control during the design phase to more – andconsequently, more precision but less autonomy for the builders. Indeed, such a trend exists. Theengineering revolution in the eighteenth century changed our expectations of design: We requiremore certainty, which is generally good as it leads to safer construction. It does not mean, however, that we are not obliged to question the desired level of control case by case. In the digital era we canachieve more than ever: more detail, more complexity. However, it is vital to check whether thecomplexity generated at one tectonic scale is in reasonable balance with the whole – conceptuallyand pragmatically. This text, at large, is about this complex relationship between tectonics and scale in architecture. Tobe more precise, it is a polemic about the right scale of tectonics, which seems to be highly relevanttoday. When feasibility-related or technological limitations rarely exist, how do we decide on the rightamount of control in the design phase? If to err is human, is total control divine? The selectedexamples are fraud in many senses: they represent a unique architectural form and are allconveniently dated. Yet, I believe they illustrate the complexity of the problem well. They tell valuablestories of how less control can lead to more detail, yet certain tectonics depend on immaculateprecision, i.e., total control. They shed light on how intertwined the problem of tectonics and theconstruction process is and how personal biases influence tectonics – both its conception andperception. Drifting PlatesTectonic Tools Nicholas Boyarsky Keywords: catastrophe, agency of architecture, modernology, ethnography, conviviality, tectonicplates The constant grinding of tectonic plates heralds both transformation and catastrophe. The awareness of inevitable destruction, often portrayed through the metaphor of ruin, is inbuilt in ourbuilding culture yet rarely acknowledged. Architecture negotiates the dialectic between constructionand destruction, it is existential to this process yet elusive. It is manifest on the building site which isboth a tectonic site of contestation, adversarial in nature, and a forum for collaboration, where finelybalanced tolerances are quantified and determined. Architecture sits uneasily between our focus onthe building as a discrete object and a search for a cultural consensus of how we might design andbuild in a broader societal context. Tectonics in relation to building practice and the pragmatics ofconstruction challenges the role of the architect calling for a critical resistance to the forces ofindustrialisation and their ultimate destruction. In the context of our contemporary drive to the digital it is instructive to draw distinctions between theproduction of architecture through the primacy of image that the all-encompassing lens of thecomputer screen empowers and the ethnographic means by which vernacular architectures havetraditionally been realised, through what I call tectonic tools. The tool is an implement, an everydayobject, but when it is fashioned, adapted and used it becomes individual and bespoke. Metaphoricallyit becomes a symbol of empowerment which embodies the totalising economic and political forceswithin building but also enables individual creativity and resistance. In this context it is noteworthyhow depictions of tools and craft processes in Diderot’s 18th century enlightenment project, the Encylopedie, gave identity to and galvanized a new social power base ‘ultimatelycontributing to the destruction of old values and the creation of new ones’. This paper will explore how ‘tectonic tools’ that have developed as cultural artefactsimbued with the imprint of their individual makers came to be adopted in architecturaldiscourse often as the means to resist the increasing impact of industrialised production, becoming symbols for an alternative future. I will consider this against the background ofincreasing digitalisation and the immense cultural experiment which John May has called‘imaging’. This resistance can be seen in the writings of Ivan Illich who, in 1973, argued for tools forconviviality that would stand for the opposite of industrial productivity and foster‘autonomous and creative intercourse among persons and the intercourse of persons withtheir environment’. The Italian radicals’ educational project ‘Global Tools’, inspired in part bythe Whole Earth Catalogue. Access to Tools, sought to build an anti-disciplinarian space toconsider arts and crafts in an anti-urban context. Superstudio’s ‘Project Zeno’ and ‘Extra- Urban Material Culture’ focussed specifically on the agrarian and vernacular and thepotential for tools and hand crafted objects in forming an alternative modus operandi. Otherproponents for the liberating possibilities of tools for self building can be found in EnzoMari’s ‘Proposta per un’Autoprogettazione’ (‘Self-design proposal’), and Mario Cresci’sMisurazioni, fotografia e territorio. George Kubler’s Shape of Time: Remarks on the History ofThings of 1963 had, to some extent, set the context for these speculations by laying out aperspective where processes of innovation, replication and mutation are in continuousconversation over time. Alfred Wegener, who developed the continental drift theory in theearly 20th century, had offered a global framing for these debates as his articulation of theunderlying dynamics of tectonic plates offered an explanation for the disjunct biogeologicdistribution of present-day life found on different continents but having similar ancestors. Contrary to this, and marking a profound break with the ethnographic tradition, VilemFlusser’s reading of the photograph as a technical image generated by the functionalapparatus of the camera accounted for a loss of human agency that tools embody. Byexposing the programmed nature of the photograph Flusser revealed a tension betweenthe photographer’s creative goals and the camera’s programming that characterises thedilemma of the tectonic tool. He describes the shift in code structures from historicalthinking which he argues is linear and rooted in alphabetic writing to the condition of post- history where nonlinear, pixelated technical images predominate. In a world dominated bythe apparatus a critical resistance offers ‘the last form of meaningful revolution: reclaimingsignificance and freedom through conscious engagement with technology’. What Lies Beneath the Surface Patrick Doan Because of the open porches, how the building is made iscompletely clear before you go into it. It is the samerealization behind Renaissance buildings, which gave thearcade to the street, though the buildings themselves did not need the arcade for their own purposes. So the porch sits there, made as the interior is made, without any obligation of paintings onits walls, a realization of what is architecture. When you look at thebuilding and porch, it is as an offering. You know it wasn’tprogrammed; it is something that emerged. You know what’s so wonderful about those porches? They’re sounnecessary. – Louis Kahn, Light is the Theme, p28 Comprising the west elevation of the Kimbell Art Museum (KAM) located in the museum district of Ft. Worth, Texas and designed by the late Estonian born American architect Louis Kahn are a series ofthree porches running north to south. Each porch is constructed of reinforced concrete with 2’x 2’ columns located in each corner that supports a 23’ wide x 100’ clear span vaulted cycloid shell roof. These porches stand as a form of architectural introduction to the museum straddling a liminal spacethat is both interior and exterior. As porches (exterior rooms), they provide a backdrop to the lawn andare part of a carefully choregraphed sequence of architectural events that move the guest from thelawn to the museum. They sit in quiet repose animated by the movement of the sun, the sounds of thewater, and echo of footsteps. They also reveal the constructive nature of the museum’s gallery spaces(interior rooms). While elemental in their structural form, the structure foretells the story of the roomsto be formed within the museum. For Kahn, the questions surrounding the relationship of tectonics to program was foundational andinseparable to his work. He approached architecture with the idea of the room with its properproportion and purpose as the beginning of architecture and structure the giver of light. The role ofarchitecture was to amplify and elevate the human condition. The KAM, arguable one of Kahn’s finestbuildings, in many ways best exemplifies his approach to the consequential relationship ofarchitecture’s constructive nature to inhabitation. Fundamental to this relationship at the KAM is thesignificant role the porches play in both the design and inhabitation of the museum. This essay will use the porches of the KAM to provide a lens through which to study the importance ofKahn’s complex and evolving relationship of tectonics to program and maturing architectural position. An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete ArchitectureA Case Study Into the Relational Character of Tectonics andProgram When Transforming an Existing Building Anne Beim, Magnus Reffs Kramhřft, Line Kjćr Frederiksen Keywords: Tectonics, Transformation, Reuse, Relevance, Longevity Problem statement What are the tectonic rules and principles that either hinder or underpin transformation of a building’sprogram? Based on fundamental tectonic analysis this article critically discusses why/how a ratheryoung office building - representative of a global commercial typology - now faces potentialdemolition. The building was once conceived as a prestigious ‘architecturally designed headquarter’, symbolizing a multinational corporation’s future vision and market position, whereas todayit is considered as an outdated building type that no longer serves its purpose or alignswith today’s functional and aesthetic preferences. The objective of the article Adaptive reuse and transformation of existing buildings are critical architectural strategiesfor reducing the building industry's environmental (GhG) impact by decreasing the demandfor new construction (IPCC, 2023). Thus, reprogramming existing structures for reuse andto enable maintaining their relevance is arguably a less resource-intensive interventionthan demolition for building new construction. (Eberhardt et al. 2022). However, existingstructures hold inherent tectonic features based on their original programming that maychallenge repurposing (Cramer & Breitling, 2007). This tension between tectonics andprogram forms the core of our case study examining Nauticon, a 1990s Copenhagen officebuilding representing a typology often subjected to demolition. Nauticon was built between1989-90, in the Southern part of the harbor of Copenhagen, Denmark. The building complexfeatures four 5-story Y-shaped volumes connected by three transparent entrance halls. Theeastern facades are dominated by blue-coated reflective glass, while the north/westfacades feature load-bearing concrete elements. Modern office buildings with industrializedconstruction systems typically lack recognition as valuable architectural heritage, raisingquestions about preserving unloved/ unappreciated buildings of our recent past(Realdania, 2024). By identifying the friction points between Nauticon's original/ presentprogramming and tectonics, this article aims to discuss less destructive and moremeaningful building practices. Analysis/discussion This article analyses friction points between program and tectonics across threeintersected levels, which also inform the discussion of how legislative framework impactNauticon's architectural potential. 1. The context vs. the building body This section points to the architectural visions and the state of industrialized construction inDenmark that have influenced Nauticon’s development. This includes the site and body ofthe building; how are the material choices defining the composition of the building (heavy, flexible, durable, kit-of-parts, etc.), and its historical characteristics? It also explores the legalrequirements governing the building's reuse and its immediate context, noting howdemands for recreational areas and supporting facilities have changed dramatically overthe past three decades. 2. The building body vs. the floor plan Nauticon's Y-shaped volumes were conceived as "universal building blocks" adaptable toany orientation and location. The Y-shaped floor plans with load-bearing facades - designed for maximum interior flexibility and office functionality - now represent theprimary obstacles for reprogramming the building. This section studies the buildingprinciple; how does the structural layout define the building’s program and vice versa, itsusability, spatial qualities, flexibility and future adaptability? Additionally, contemporarylegislation regarding access, escape routes, and daylight requirements for spatial depthslimits Nauticon's reprogramming potentials. 3. Floor plan vs. specific construction solutions This section analyses specific design elements as window positioning in the load-bearing concretefacade. These windows were optimized for seated office workers rather than up-standing positions. Similarly, structural elements and joints were dimensioned and optimized for the functionality of thebuilding, making substantial alterations both technically challenging and financially expensive. Thesedesign choices create both constructional and legal barriers to physical interventions and raisesquestions regarding design details and rhetoric; how are the details generated, and which approachesare applied to enhance specific features? What are the functional or aesthetic role models? Conclusion Analysis of Nauticon’s tectonic language, current program, and potential future use, reveals significantdesign, construction, and legal barriers in the process of transforming the building for new use. Thestudy concludes that aligning programs with existing building tectonics minimizes necessaryextensive alterations. This reduced intervention scope—particularly for structural systems—isessential for minimizing environmental impact, waste generation, and virgin material consumption. Deeper understanding of a building's history, design intent, and construction principles enables moreappropriate functional adaptations. Creating new relevance in existing structures is critical forpreserving building resources in place—without it, buildings lose meaning, deteriorate, and facedemolition. Perspectives How do we find the potential-value / relevance-value / becoming-value of a building? Would more open interpretation of the legal framework be beneficial to preserve buildings and theirrelevance? Can market forces be challenged? Is it sustainable that financial incentives determinewhat a building's new program should be? Perhaps it’s more appropriate to assess what is possible tocreate/achieve with the existing building at hand. Are modern buildings over-programmed and toopurposely designed? How can we design for adaptability or for disassembly to prepare buildings forfuture changes and different needs? References IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to theSixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 184 pp. Cramer, J. & S. Breitling 2007. Architecture in Existing Fabric - Planning, Design, Building. BaselSwitzerland. Birkhauser. Eberhardt, L.C. M., Garnow A., Birgisdottir H., Rose, J. & Kragh, J. 2022. Klimapotentialet ved renoveringkontra nedrivning med nybyg. (1 udg.) Institut for Byggeri, By og Miljř (BUILD), Aalborg Universitet. BUILD Rapport Bind 2022 Nr. 37. Realdania 2024. Klimavisioner for modernismens bygningskultur. Realdania. Copenhagen. Realdania 2024. Renovering er bedst for klimaet - Konklusioner fra udviklingsprojektet Klimadata forrenovering. Realdania. Copenhagen. Edvard RavnikarThe search for Architectural Authenticity Aleš Vodopivec Keywords: Edvard Ravnikar, Authenticity, Tectonics, Architectural Structure Following the end of World War II, Slovenia saw the emergence of special, regionallyadapted modernist architecture. The most credit for this development goes to EdvardRavnikar, who advocated for the culturally specific character of architecture, even though atthe time regional particularities of the built environment were beginning to lose theirsignificance the world over. Ravnikar found the authenticity of Slovenian architecture in thesensitive dialogue between modernism and tradition. His understanding of tradition draws both from the discipline of classical architecture andthe elementary nature of vernacular architecture – the former as the lasting foundation andauthority in the structural logic and method of construction, and the latter as an expressionof utmost rationality and sincerity dictated by limited resources. Both of them, he found, areguided by the rules of tectonics. His architecture is therefore an indivisible whole ofusability, structural design, and appearance. The emphasis is on the supporting structure, which defines spatial organisation, the module, the rhythm, the scale, and the outwardexpression of architecture. Ravnikar’s designs are not inspired by an a priori image or anabstract artistic composition, but derive from selected construction techniques andmethods, materials and their treatment, and the logic of combining and bringing elementstogether. This is what underpins the extraordinary complexity and unique poetics of hiswork. Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Concrete Robert McCarter Keywords: Frank Lloyd Wright, concrete, materials, tectonics Critical events in architectural history are most often scripted in stylistic or purely formalterms. Yet architects practicing in America in the latter decades of the 19th century engagedanother definition of the discipline of architecture, one that was much less concerned withfashion and form, and much more concerned with the tradition of building and the makingof places. Throughout his life as an architect, Frank Lloyd Wright attempted to relate thespaces and forms of his designs to the structures and materials with which they were made—as he said, he worked “in the nature of materials.” Wright believed this was essential if hisbuildings were to engage with the concept of aedificare, the ancient word for building, which means both to edify, to instruct, and to build, to construct—and both understood tobe undertaken with ethical intention. Wright engaged in a constant search for acomprehensive order that would encompass both composition and construction, an ordersimilar to the fusion of structure, material, form and function that he had found in hisstudies of nature. Wright attempted to develop forms from the rhythm inherent in eachparticular system of construction he employed, so that the construction might in turn beintegrated with and responsive to the spatial idea. Of all building materials, Wrightconsidered reinforced concrete to be the one truly modern material—“modern” for Wrightbecause concrete was entirely “plastic,” able to be formed into any conceivable shape, fullyfireproof and self-supporting. Reinforced concrete was also the construction material withwhich Wright had both his greatest difficulties and his greatest successes. An examination of Wright’s efforts to appropriately employ reinforced concrete also illustrates the tradition of buildingas Wright redefined it in the 20th century. Izdala Publisher Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za arhitekturo/University of Ljubljana, Faculty of ArchitectureZoisova cesta 12, SI-1000 Ljubljana Gostujoci urednik Guest Editor Christopher Bardt Urednik Editor Paul O Robinson, University of Ljubljana, FA Uredniški odbor Editorial Board prof. dr. Uršula Berlot Pompe, University of Ljubljana, ALUOJudith Birdsong, Writer and Lecturer, School of architecture, UT Austinprof. dr. Matej Blenkuš, University of Ljubljana, FAdoc. dr. Mariana Correia, Escola Superior Gallaecia, PTprof. dr. Peter Fister, University of Ljubljana, FAprof. dr. Imma Forino, Politecnico di Milanoprof. mag. Peter Gabrijelcic, University of Ljubljana, FAprof. dr. Vojko Kilar, University of Ljubljana, FAprof. Robert MacLeod, USF School of Architecture and Community Designprof. dr. Agostino De Rosa, Universitŕ Iuav di Veneziaassoc. prof. dr. Matevž Juvancic, University of Ljubljana, FAassoc. prof. dr. Beatriz Tomšic Cerkez, University of Ljubljana, PeFdoc. dr. Špela Verovšek, University of Ljubljana, FAdoc. dr. Domen Zupancic, University of Ljubljana, FAprof. dr. Tadeja Zupancic, University of Ljubljana, FA Tehnicni urednik Technical Editor doc. dr. Špela Verovšek, University of Ljubljana, FA Prevodi v slovenšcino Slovene Translations Andreja Šalamon Verbic Podoba na ovitku Cover art Alfred DeCredicoImage courtesy of the Estate of Alfred DeCredico Design & layout Design & layout Marko Damiš Cena Price 0,00 EUR Architecture Research2025/Arhitektura, raziskavear.fa.uni-lj.siISSN 1581-6974wwwISSN 1580-5573printThe AR journal redaction is co-financed by the Slovenian Researchand Innovation Agency (ARIS P5-0068; ARIS-ZPP-23/24)