Abstraction and conceptomania

The question - rhetorical, by the way - whether there is Architecture without concept, is legitimate in the confusion in which we are struggling. From its exalted position as a philosophical concept, a product of multiply distilled thought, the term concept has been democratized with innocence and generosity (not to say vulgarized) by all producers of objects of any creative nature. It has thus come to haunt with nonchalance any comment and jury, any correction, even any small talk between architects - to the satisfaction of dilettantes, the displeasure of pedants and the amused indulgence of connoisseurs with a sense of humor.

The simple answer is: of course there is no architecture without a thematic substance, but the question is: under what conditions can this germinating nucleus of any project be associated with the quality of concept? Another question is: how rigorous should we be with terminology? I propose that we should be tolerant, but only in full knowledge of the facts. It remains to be seen to what extent the abuse of "conceptualization" is harmful, harmless or perhaps even beneficial, i.e. stimulating. If, in fact, the architectural ideology called conceptualism has not, in the end, obliquely and belatedly, achieved its basic purpose - that of shaking traditional architectural culture out of its inertia, oxygenating it by resemanticizing it and opening up new horizons. And this at the predictable risk of deviations.

Forty-five years ago, conceptual architecture was launched with a clear meaning into the world of theoretical architecture: A conceptual structure is an aspect of a visible form - be it a drawing or a building, which is an idea. It is there to allow access within the form, to the universal formal relations. ...The physical form must contain that structure capable of diverting the viewer from sensory perception and placing him in a conceptual attitude. It must even repress the possible priority of an emotional reaction in order to allow an approximation of conceptual ^intent1. A hundred years ago, art historians were discovering the soul of a work of art under the influence of psychoanalysis, but in 1970 an architect named Eisenman, at the suggestion of philosophy, was trying to discover the categories of the "being" of an object.

Then, surprisingly for an ultra-elitist, metadisciplinary, incisive and extravagant ideology, it produced a small earthquake. Followed by retorts and retorts to retorts, it was disseminated. The debates went beyond the circle of the initiated by those who put things in the architects' terms, tempering the cerebrality of the thesis and giving more plausible interpretations. In the end, the reverberations kept spreading, more and more diluted, eventually penetrating our old worldly architecture, the one twinned with reality and hopes, satisfying needs and producing emotions, as we have known it for thousands of years. Yet they still retained enough virility to destabilize their certainties and unsettle our minds as decent architects. What I mean is that they disturbed our 'vertical thinking', the logical, linear, school-trained 'vertical thinking' on the left side of the brain and forced us to shift our efforts to the right, to 'lateral thinking', the 'quicksand thinking' on which creativity and heuristic solutions dance. There followed a generalized popularization of the concept, with slippages and misunderstandings, until it had as many meanings as there are architects on earth. In this way things stabilized in the end, through a sort of compromise that each architect made, according to his or her possibilities, with the settled and the restless side of the brain.

The question - entirely rhetorical - whether there is Architecture in the absence of concepts is legitimate, given the current confusion in which we find ourselves. From its superior position of philosophical concept and product of repeatedly distilled thought, the term of concept has been subjected to an innocent and generous democratization (I shall refrain from saying "vulgarization") by all producers of objects containing a however small amount of creativity. And so it happens that now the term is popping up hauntingly in any comment, jury grading, correction, even any small talk between architects - to the satisfaction of dilettantes, the bewilderment of pedants and the amused tolerance of the connoisseurs with a sense of humor.

The simple answer is: of course there is no architecture without a thematic substance. The question is: under what circumstances can the germinating nucleus of any project qualify as a concept? Yet another question would be: how rigorous should we be when it comes to terminology? I would opt for tolerance, but only with full knowledge. We should also see whether the excessive resort to "conceptualization" is harmful, harmless or possibly beneficial, i.e. motivating, and whether the architectural ideology referred to as conceptualism has ultimately, in oblique and belated fashion, achieved its very goal of putting an end to the inertia of the traditional architectural culture, of revitalizing it by ascribing new meanings to it and of opening new horizons. All this, while running the predictable risk of deviations.

Forty-five years ago, conceptual architecture was launched with a very clear meaning in the world of theoretical architecture: A conceptual structure is that aspect of the visible form, whether it is an idea in a drawing, or in a building, which is intentionally put in the form to provide access to the inner form or universal formal relationship. ... In order to approximate a conceptual intention, the shapes which are perceived would have to contain a structure within their physical presence which would have the capacity to take the viewer from the sense (immediate) perception, to a conceptual attitude, and at the same time requiring of this structure a capacity to suppress the possible primacy of a sensual response.1 And thus, one hundred years ago, art historians discovered the soul of the work under the influence of psychoanalysis, while in 1970 an architect by the name of Eisenman tried to discover the categories of an object's "being" following the suggestion of philosophy.

Then, quite surprisingly for an ultra-elitist, meta-disciplinary, sharp and extravagant ideology, it produced a small earthquake. The debates went beyond the circle of the initiated thanks to those who translated it to the understanding of architects, mitigating its pointed intellectualness and endowing it with more plausible readings. Finally, its increasingly diluted reverberations reached our old mundane architecture which nurtures on reality and hopes, satisfies needs and produces emotions, as we have known it for thousands of years. It was still strong enough to shake some of its certainties though and to trouble our thoughts of good-natured architects. What I mean by that is that it troubled our "vertical thinking", logic, linear, school-trained, formed in the left part of the brain, and forced us to shift our efforts to the right side of the brain, to the "lateral thinking", the quicksand, harboring creativity and heuristic solutions. What followed was the generalized popularization of the concept, with deviations and misunderstandings, so that the term ended up gaining as many meanings as there are architects on Earth. Things settled finally and a sort of compromise was thus reached, by each architect in turn, according to his possibilities, between the good side and the naughty side of his brain.