Читать книгу Architecture. Dialectic. Synthesis - - Страница 8

The understanding of architecture is usually based on the Vitruvian triad of strength – usefulness – beauty or, in other words, design – function – aesthetics (artistic imagery, composition). Accordingly, constructive, functional and aesthetic aspects are identified in architecture in general and in individual buildings.

The most acute opposition in this triad is characteristic of the categories of function and aesthetics, which has found historical expression in the antithesis of classical ("old") and modern ("new", modernist) architecture. The latter is characterized as functionally conditioned, and the first one as saturated with various kinds of non-functional decorativeness. The term "minimalism" appears at one pole, and the concept of "architectural excesses" at the other.

The third part of the Vitruvian triad – strength or construction – eventually ceases to be a category defining the identity of architectural activity. Universal masters, engineers and artists in one person, such as Pier Luigi Nervi and Santiago Calatrava, continue to appear in architecture. But this does not change the general vector towards the gradual "dematerialization" of architecture. It is noteworthy that A. V. Ikonnikov named one of his books "Function, Form, Image in Architecture," thus leaving the topic of materials and structures out of the main discourse.

The understanding of architecture is based on the pair of "function-aesthetics". The structural system plays the role of a means to achieve functional and aesthetic goals.

Let's start our search for the dialectical foundations of architecture with the opposition "function-aesthetics". Opposites arise from the initial identity, and, having passed through the stage of confrontation, they unite in the separable integrity of synthesis. What are the opposite features of function and aesthetics?

A function in the most general sense is an activity. A function always implies that or who is functioning, acting. The function itself is used only in an abstract mathematical field. For architecture, functionality, including ergonomics, is primarily related to human physicality. It is precisely as a function of the body that the function is opposed to decor, decorations, etc., which do not give anything to direct physical comfort. But if we do not reduce the fullness of human nature to body alone, then we should talk not only about the function of the body, but also about the function of the soul and spirit, and, generalizing, about the function of man as a spiritual, mental and physical whole. If we understand the function in such a way, it becomes possible to overcome the antithesis of function and aesthetics. Aesthetics in this regard becomes a psychological and spiritual function18. The ideal side of a person is formed by the antithesis of mind and heart. According to the structure of a person, one can distinguish between the function of the mind, the function of the heart, the function of the will, etc. The function of the mind in its most general form is philosophy, since it is philosophy that is engaged in integrating all scientific, religious and other knowledge into one integral worldview. From this point of view, when an architect seeks to create a "theology in stone" in a temple, his actions are also functional, and temple architecture is spiritually functional. The functionalism of the twentieth century is the result of reducing architecture to purely materialistic understanding.

Aesthetics, which nourishes the human mind and heart, is perceived primarily visually. The tented roofs of ancient Russian churches serve as an illustration to the theological idea (striving for God) and a spatial landmark at the same time. This is just one example against a narrow understanding of the function. It is well-known that the space below the tented roof of the temples was completely unused and was isolated by the ceiling from the main part of the temple, where worship was held, as otherwise additional heating costs would have been required.

A function is the "what" of architecture, it is its content, what architecture expresses and formulates. Architecture is the architecture of the human function as a whole. Man in his functioning is the content of architecture and architectural creativity. Architecture, therefore, is the otherness not only of the body of a person, but of his entire nature, including his mind and worldview. Just as man himself is a synthesis of ideal and material principles, so architecture, which continues his being in nature, becomes a synthesis of the dwelling of the body and the dwelling of consciousness (ideology, mythology). And this is aesthetics that forms the second – ideal – plan, layer of architecture. Aesthetics is the architectural "how" of mythological eidos. Function and aesthetics are related as "what" and "how", or, according to the antithesis common to all art, as content and form.

Considering aesthetics from the point of view of function suggests the opposite. One of the examples of understanding function through aesthetics is given by the aphorism of F. Johnson: "The beauty lies in the way you move in space.19" Johnson obviously meant the movement of the body, but one can expand the concept of "movement in space" to the movement of the soul's feelings in the space of art, the movement of the mind in the space of philosophy.

Thus, aesthetics and function are dialectically interrelated. But this is not enough for dialectics, and having separately considered any categorical opposition, it seeks to synthesize it into a new integral category. For the antithesis of function-aesthetics, it is the architectural form itself that plays the part of such a synthesis.

It should be noted that a completely natural separation of function (in the sense of body function) and pure aesthetics is possible in special types of architectural creativity. There is a whole complex of structures that have no utilitarian purpose – such as monuments, triumphal arches, etc. They are completely dominated by the aesthetic principle. At the same time, there are whole types of architecture, such as industrial and fortifications, where function plays a crucial part.

Let's summarize the identified triad:

1) Functional and aesthetic original identity

2) The antithesis of function and aesthetics

3) Functional and aesthetic synthesis: architectural form

This triad reveals the dialectic of architectural eidos. Like any eidos, it strives to embody and become tangibly manifest, which transfers us into the sphere of architectural meon20.