Some notes on traditions and tradition

A few terms, which I will deliberately indicate by their ancient names, control every tradition. First, in architecture, tradition seems to consist of three broad significant narratives: topos, typos and techné. The first describes a science of identifying place and preparing it for building. The second concerns the option for one or another of the established building types (best practices) and finally, the third concerns the option for a way, considered optimal, to translate that actualization of the type to that site. We find them in all the ancients and, despite the terms used, I will not refer to the ancient Greeks nor to Heidegger or Norber-Schulz. We have the same structuring in an ancient Indian treatise. An excellent and very detailed commentary on it by Jose Jacob in the chapter "Opening the Eye: "Seeing" as "Knowing"" in Vastu Sastra (Indian Architectural Theory) according to the Treatise Manasara"^1. All ritualized and assumed as revealed, the operations are as follows: (a) identification of the site; (b) tracing the signatory axes of the future edifice on the site, its orientation, as it were; (c) the actual foundation and building; (d) the adorning and, finally, the last ceremonial, the equivalent of consecration, involves bringing the statue into the sacred chamber intended for it and the operation of opening the eye, which means the incision in the statue's eyes of that little scoop which makes the dead, stone eye come to life and the statue appear present and alert. This opening of the god's eye is like the key of the bow/bolt/cupola in a Christian place of worship: the culminating event, the purpose for which all other edifying ceremonies and actions are performed.

ATTRIBUTES OF TRADITION

ARCHÉ

Tradition is (ancient), and it is precisely in this that its authority lies. Its origin, antiquity and foundation is often secured by an unearthly, sacred foundation. The appeal to (arche)^types2, to exemplary models, to best practices, in any tradition of sufficient antiquity, points to an unworldly root. Today, it is precisely the wisdom of the oldest tradition-holder that guarantees its integrity. There is an understanding, not always explicitly (or not always openly) articulated, that traditions are informed capillary, from deep within, by a primordial Tradition. Depending on the literature read or the degree of initiation, there are more or less credible descriptions of the foundations of such an essence of all traditions, which precedes them all in time, without ceasing to subsist, as an arch-writing, in all its current fragments.

VALUE

From its antiquity and its (supposedly) unchanged, or at least essentially unchanged, transmission, the value of tradition follows as a consequence. In other words, the co-present antiquity and conformity to tradition guarantee the quality of the ritual, text or artifact in question for the group attached to the tradition. In this sense, participation in the old, traditional form is one of flattering precedent, and innovation means the best possible adaptation of the new circumstances to the traditional meaning. Value does not derive from difference, usually radical, as we still believe, even though modernity has left us, but from sharing what has already been verified as good.

POST-FACTUM

Tradition is observed in its being and becoming. It cannot be anticipated and it cannot be predicted/projected. Hence the grotesque failure in scale and decorative delirium of most of the incarnations of the so-called architectural ideology of national specificity in the years after 1967, when the signal was given by the House of Culture of the Trade Unions in Suceava (architect N. Porumbescu) and until 1987 (when the Satu Mare ensemble was inaugurated).

2. Eliade's somewhat retracting statement in Proof of the Labyrinth as to what he meant by archetypes is interesting: apparently it is still about exemplary models established by transmission, and not about an epiphanic origin of them.

There are several terms, which I shall deliberately indicate with their ancient names, which control any tradition. First of all, in architecture, tradition seems to consist of three vast and significant narratives: topos, typos and techné. The first describes a science of place identification and preparation for construction. The second is concerned with the option for one or another of the established types of buildings (best practices); finally, the third examines the option for a modality, deemed optimal, of transferring on that site the materialization of the type. We find these at all the great ancients and, despite the terms used, I shall not refer to the ancient Greeks, to Heidegger or to Norber-Schulz. The same classification can be found in an old Indian treatise. An excellent, very detailed comment on it was made by Jose Jacob in the chapter "Opening the Eye: "Seeing" as "Knowing""" in Vastu Sastra (Indian Architectural Theory) according to the Treatise Manasara"^1. Ritualized and deemed to have revealed themselves, the operations are the following: a) identification of the site; b) tracing the significant axes of the future contruction on site, its orientation, so to speak; c) erecting the foundation and the building itself; d) ornamentation and, finally, the ultimate ceremony, the equivalent of consecration, bringing the statue in the sacred room intended for it and opening its eyes, namely performing an incision in the eyes of the statue, which makes the dead, stone eye revive and makes the statue seem present and alert. This godly eye opening is like the arch/vault/dome in a Christian church: the ultimate event, the purpose for which all the other exemplary ceremonies and actions are performed.

CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADITION

ARCH

Tradition is ancient and this is precisely where its authority resides. Its origin, long history and foundation are often secured by the non-earthly, sacred quality of its establishment. Anyone resorting to (arche)^types2, to exemplary models, to best practices, in any tradition of sufficient age, practically makes reference to a non-earthly source. At present it is precisely the wisdom of the oldest keeper of the tradition that vouchsafes its integr(al)ity. There is an agreement, hardly ever explicitly (or openly) worded, that traditions are suffused from within, like capillaries, by a Primordial Tradition. Depending on one's readings or on the degree of initiation, there are more or less credible descriptions of the fundamentals of such an essence of all traditions, which precedes all of them, without ceasing to subsist, like an arche-writing, in all of its current fragments.

VALOR

Its age and its transmission (allegedly) unaltered or at least unaltered in its essence account for the value of the tradition. In other words, age and conformity to tradition together guarantee the quality of the ritual, text or artefact at issue, for the group attached to such tradition. In this sense, the participation to the old, traditional form is a form of flattery of what used to be, and innovation signifies the best adequacy of new circumstances to the traditional meaning. Value does not arise from difference, and radical at that, as we like to believe, although modernity did leave us, but from sharing in that which has already been verified as good.

POST-FACTUM

Tradition is observed in its existence and becoming. It cannot be anticipated and cannot be predicted/projected, hence the grotesque failure in terms of scale and delirious design of most of the materializations of the so-called architectural ideology of national specificity, occuring after 1967, when the signal was given by the Suceava Culture House of the Trade Unions (architect N. Porumbescu) and until 1987 (when the ensemble of the same author was unveiled in Satu Mare).

2. It is interesting to note the declaration, almost amounting to a retraction, made by Eliade in Proba labirintului, about what he understood by archetype: apparently, it was about the exemplary models established by transmission, not about an epiphanic origin origin thereof.