Concept / Abstract

As a rule, the appearance of a new concept opens a new horizon of understanding, a new line of thought and problematization. In the reflection on architecture, the key notions - those that have delimited its epistemological field - have rarely been specific (except in the technical field); the theory has borrowed abstract vocabulary from other fields (philosophy, rhetoric, music, sculpture...) from the very beginning. In this case of adoption, changing the initial meaning of such a notion played the same role. Although not very frequent, such changes have been decisive, reorienting ^practice.1 To the same extent, but more recently and with greater frequency, the adoption of a new notion for something that already has a designated name may indicate a change of optic, a desired refreshing. For example, this is what happened in the Romanian architectural discourse (and in education) when the old and more technically oriented "amplasament" was replaced by the word "sit" (whose novelty gave rise to amusing confusion); and the "sit" defined its active role in the project, in relation to the idea of context, referring, if not to a new design approach, at least to the desire to show that the project is placed in a fabric of meanings in relation to the spatial, temporal or human existence. After all, the important thing was the change of attitude towards the existing, the words marked it only symbolically.

Where does the notion of concept so frequently used in reference to the project fit in? Present in recent years to the point of saturation in the discourse and in schools, it seems to aim at a different way of designing, a new approach, although the meaning of the change is far from obvious.

The concept of the project concerns the essence of the creative act. One may wonder whether, however great the transformations in architecture in recent years, the essence of design (the specific creation) has changed to such an extent that only the meanings of the concept are able to account for the novelty. Now, to the best of my knowledge, in professional discourse there have been notions covering all these meanings related to design, characterizing it since time immemorial: most of them were common words (or expressions), such as idea, approach, generating principle, starting point, guiding idea, etc., others were more specialized, such as partiu. (The latter, in particular, has a very instructive career for our ^subject2).

One may object that the essence of the creative process in architecture is not as anistorical as I suggest, and that bringing the concept to the foreground is in itself another way of designing; how and why - remains to be seen. In any case, the subject deserves to be discussed in the pages of the magazine, all the more so because nowhere is the issue settled without a rest.

Perhaps the use of the notion of concept in architectural discourse and design has its origins in what is called conceptualism in art, a movement prefigured in the 1960s, in which art is defined not by the aesthetic properties of the work/object, but only by the concept or idea of art, thus opposing the dominant definition of artistic beauty before the beginning of the 20th ^century3. Perhaps it is related to Peter Eisenman's interesting 1971 article, Notes on Conceptual Architecture: Towards a^Definition4, in which the author attempts to define the parameters by which architecture can be reformulated along the lines of conceptual art, but without erasing the distinction between art and architecture, conceptual or otherwise.

Perhaps, in our case, the frequency is simply due to the euphoria of importing words from other languages, especially English (where concept, with all its modern meanings inherited from Latin etymology, was used in architecture), words that are often useless but which can enrich the language provided they are understood (if not, they can be parasitic or even destructive).

The problem with our architectural discourse is that we do not really interrogate what we import; we are content to use new notions without critical selection, at the risk of attracting unnecessary ambiguities, contradictions and pretentious dilettantism. It is difficult to say whether, in the Romania of the moment (still in transition), the frequency with which the word is used (replacing any previous notion, but without convincing arguments) has the power to bring about a real change of optics in design (or at least an aspiration of this kind), or whether it merely plays the role of a "griff", a brand label, stuck on any cheap garment.

Rather than being a generator of meaning and design depth, concept seems to have become a word-suit, able to convey anything: from the principle that generates and controls the design to something that is conceived post factum to give intellectual credibility to the solution and the author, thus leaving room for imposture. Besides, the problem is not specific to us; a simple internet entry shows that this overuse in architecture is just as ambiguous in other languages, and that many question it as abusive or mystifying.

We therefore invite you to take a critical look at what has been said and to contribute to the clarification of this exciting topic in this issue of Arhitectura dedicated to the 'concept'.

Without any intention to limit or manipulate, we propose a few questions:

What is concept in architecture and how is it expressed in the project?

Does it have a meaning in the project and in the judgment of an architecture, or is the notion either a rubric under which we explain ourselves, or "a label" by which we affirm the intellectuality of the project?

Is there 'architecture with concept' and 'architecture without concept'? If so, is there a difference in value between them?

What does this pursuit of the concept - in the architect's design and thinking, in teaching, in theory - really bring that is new?

NOTES:

1 It is the case of symmetry which, in 1684 (Claude Perrault, translation of the Vitruvian book), will be narrowly defined as the exact correspondence of two parts in relation to an axis and will thus break away from the ancient meaning (partially taken over by proportion), causing a reorientation of design practice and another path of theorizing.

2 Brought to Romania with the architects who had studied at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, the French parti ( which became partiu), was the French word for the underlying scheme of a project, drawn up in graphic form on a 'sketch' day, a scheme that had to be followed and given form through the project; modernist opposition to the academies and their historical culture outlawed it (as the bearer of academic formalism); it persisted in the vocabulary of project teaching until the end of the 20th century; today, hardly anyone in the younger generations uses it any more. And yet, French project theory recently (re)theorizes it and brings it back into discourse and practice... with meaning synonymous with the concept (!).

3 Expressed in the Kantian formula, "the beautiful is that which is universally pleasing without concept".

4 Casabella no. 359-360, dec. 1971, p. 51.

The issue of Arhitectura on CONCEPT/ABSTRACTIZATION will be launched on Tuesday, January 27, at 5 p.m. in the CCA-UAR, 48 rue Jean Louis Calderon. The following contributors will be present at the launch: Augustin Ioan, Francoise Pamfil, Anca Sandu Tomașevschi, Florian Stanciu, Ștefan Vianu. Read more details here or visit the event page on facebook.