CREATIVITY GAME

The basic premise is that architectural work in all its forms is intricately connected with research and theoretical work. Here, the theoretical work may be called architectural theory or urban planning theory, further, it can be called experiment or, indeed, criticism. In any case, it refers to the work that enables authors to develop the approaches, methods and concepts that may (or may not) be applied to the actual practice. Any team of researchers, architects and/or urban designers in any work (of any kind of value) develops innovative approaches, where the line between theory and practice is blurred. Even more, theory (more or less general and consistent) is often the basis and starting point of a project. Analogously, in the teaching process, theory (and history) is an integral part of teaching and learning how to design, in the sense of a generally acknowledged direction, recognising that the acquisition of knowledge through research has many advantages over learning without critical engagement. Hence, the journal will try to grasp the relationship between theory and practice in architecture, urban design and all other disciplines addressing research and (spatial) planning. Indeed, it will fill the gap between knowledge and lack thereof, in the work at the faculties, in research and practice. We therefore hope that the journal will attract a large readership among students, but also outside the faculties of architecture, and civil and geodetic engineering, even beyond the professions of architecture, urban and spatial planning, and civil engineering. Our ambitions are international; we want to build a bridge between disciplines, generations and professions. The key is in the positive professional and ethical focus that we intend to represent.

What is the contribution of architectural theory to the understanding of the phenomenon of architectural practice and problems addressed by architecture, urban design, spatial planning and all other disciplines related to the spatial planning of the 21st century? Before tapping into the subject matter, let us define some general terms. First let us ask ourselves what we mean by architectural theory. In philosophy, the question »What 'is' something?« is an ontological question. The word ontology originates from the Greek ontos, which means 'being'. The question What is something? is a question about the way and sense of the existence of something. As architecture primarily involves practice, would it not be better to leave these questions to those who are more qualified to address them, e.g. philosophers? By definition, architects are pragmatic, and our questions are typically how and what, rather than why. Hence, we must ask, What is theory for? The off-the-cuff answer could be that the concepts in the field of architectural theory first cater to our own needs, so that we can explain, and make sense of, our work, while, further, they enable the transfer of knowledge to clients and users, for evaluation and similar. Hence, the journal is a medium and a motive for dealing with such matters. We can also say that theory is that which is produced by architectural theorists, i.e. theories about architecture; as everyone has their different theories and standpoints on what architectural theory actually is, there is really no point in trying to give any kind of final answers. For some, theory is writing about architectural aesthetics, about how to design a beautiful house, for others it is thinking about the future of architecture. However, before we start with the research, we are allowed to expect some sort of a definition of the subject matter and manner of our research.

Each architecture is based on some form of theory, even though the theories are not always put in writing or explained by architects; indeed, architects usually do not feel the need to write down their thoughts before starting a project. As it is, this is done by us, architectural theorists, so that the principles of architectural work would survive in writing long after the work is done. When trying to define architectural theory, let us rely on the authors who addressed it in the past. Hanno Kruft (1994) opted for a practical definition of architectural theory, i.e. that architectural theory is any text on architecture recorded in written form, as partial as it may be, or with the ambition of completeness, defining architecture with the help of aesthetic qualities. On the other hand, Nesbitt (1996) in her own version of an anthology of architectural theory gives a somewhat wider definition: »Within the discipline of architecture, theory is a discourse that describes the practice and production of architecture and identifies challenges to it. Theory overlaps with but differs from architectural history, which is descriptive of past work, and from criticism, a narrow activity of judgement and interpretation of existing architectural works. Theory poses alternative solutions based on observations of the current state of the discipline, or offers new thought paradigms for approaching the issues. Its focus on research and innovation distinguishes theoretical activity from history and criticism.« The focus of research or publications will range from interdisciplinary research dealing with architecture and urban design against the setting of a non-transparent reality of society and politics, through real examples of good practice, and, in parallel, to staying in contact with the everyday practice, which we may refer to – according to Yaneva (2009) – as project ethnography.

Generating accounts of practice should not be an end in itself, but meant for constructive criticism that will encourage the formation of theoretical groundwork for teaching and practice in architecture, urban design, spatial planning and other disciplines. The fact that the journal is electronic shows that we do not shy away from the changes that computerisation brought into the corpus of the discipline and learning of all relevant professions. There have been many such changes and their effects are versatile. An important topic is the digitalisation of the new ways of project design and the related changes in architectural practice and theory. The Internet is new, too, i.e. an omnipresent environment of continuous comparability of the overall production, both theoretical and physical. A lateral, but a general, concept in the discipline has become the so-called sampling, when architects sample ideas from the Internet in the form of images, without regard to their context, process or location. Some may call this globalisation of architecture. The Internet has changed the teaching of project design, theory and history. Data have become unimportant, while concepts are becoming increasingly important, helping students to understand what it is all about. Only when the students grasp the big picture are they able to benefit from the data from the Internet, as the data become their material, source and encouragement. The use of the Internet starts to make sense when the student is able to assess what a piece of information means, what is its range and its place, whether to discard it or to evaluate it. The Internet is like a hunting ground with a thousand possible catches: When you go, you have no idea what you will catch and take for your own and how; this will depend on your hunting ability. The hunting ground is like a labyrinth where you choose your own ways that might, or might not, lead to a solution. Theory equips us with the conceptual competence which enables us to confidently move around the Internet and benefit from it, avoiding uncritical recapitulation and conceptual confusion.

I well remember my days as a student and how I got frustrated because I did not understand the classical vocabulary of architecture, could not distinguish between the periods and styles, and failed to see syntax errors in architectural works; back then, architectural history was not taught at the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana. This gap in education is similar to the one of a musician who does not know the language of music, symbols, techniques, counterpoint etc. The more you delve into the language of architecture, the more you realize that it is, ultimately, all about the same thing in all architectures, of all times. The basic concepts have not changed for the past 5000 years and architecture has been realised through them in both theoretical works and the built environment.

Interdisciplinarity is the next aspect that determines the contemporary architectural reality. But not only that. In the first architectural treatise written by the roman engineer and architect Vitruvius, there is a mention of nine disciplines that the architect should know; the architect should be skilful with pencil, instructed in mathematics, should follow contemporary science, should be a philosopher, understand music, have some knowledge of medicine, law and astronomy (Vitruvius, 2009). This may seem like an impossible demand on anyone; however, Vitruvius never expected that the architect could perform surgeries or play the instruments like a professional, but that they had at least some knowledge in all these areas. Today, in an era of specialisation, it is by no means easy to know well one’s own area of expertise, let alone to master more disciplines. Generally, generalist intellectuals make better architectural scholars than specialists. The role that has been historically assumed by architects – and one that still persists – is that the architect is a »jack-of-all-trades« in a project, i.e. the mastermind and organization leader, coordinator, the one who takes the responsibility, and the always guilty party, that is, more a director or a choreographer than a manager or a dancer.

Sustainability is another aspect waiting to be theoretically addressed and integrated. It seems to me that, on the one hand, the aspect is overrated and mystified, while, on the other hand, it is understood in a rather narrow and technicistic sense. Architecture has always tackled the subject matters of sustainable development and sustainability. Is not Plečnik’s and Stele’s concept of Architectura perennis the prototype of sustainability in architecture?

Each task can be an opportunity to make another small contribution to architectural research. The freedom of creative thinking and creative imagination are the basis for work which has often a power much stronger than the actual practice of design and building. The research has many directions and faces. But it is the face (the facet) that lends it its sense. Research for research's sake or the mere collection or sorting of data has no real relation to creative research, which leads to innovation and is always individual. The key is in the creative act of imagination, i.e. when something new is born. For the architects in practice, competitions have traditionally provided such platforms of innovation. They provide the way for research, for creation of new ideas. The same is true for workshops which are the subject matter of this issue and are covered comprehensively in the texts, so there is no need for me to delve into it. Lately, competitions have been mostly regarded as work opportunities. The architects have been entering the competitions with the goal to win and get work, and not to develop the »corpus of architecture«. Unfortunately, the institution of a noble pedigree has fallen to the level of crafty calculations with a profane goal, while the methods adapt to the goal. In this way, the original capability of creating new meanings and knowledge is lost. This also means the reduction of creative possibilities for the institution of the competition (or architectural theory), which was not limited by an actual goal and, hence, strived for the »construction of a sensible future«.

I am always both calmed and exhilarated when doctors or scientists predict that in 10 or 15 year a groundbreaking discovery will be made, i.e. a new drug (e.g. for aids) or the solution to a mathematical or physical problem. Computers are the infrastructure for this optimism, similar to the barge that in Ancient Egyptian graves provided the ferry carrying the pharaoh to eternal life. The symbol of a barge is the symbol of this journal; it will, as a ferry, open places and connect those of us who love architecture and theory. I apologise for my use of hall-like language, as I am writing this foreword on a boat, on a see journey between the archaeological past and the present time of the cradle of European civilisation (Aegean Sea and Asia Minor). Time is touching the horizon, opening the way to thinking about the grandness of times past and the potential future that lies in our hands; we must create the conditions, framework and groundwork for it. Architecture is an eternal barge, but continuously changing. Sense can be also brought about from studying the dialectical relationship between sustainability and change. Finally, let me highlight one more goal of the project involving this journal. We will try to establish a common ground, the basis for communication and development of language, which will perhaps help us put in words the sense for the future. This common ground is the humus helping the theory to grow and shape the concepts and mental tools useful, at first, for the theory itself, and, through it, for creativity and learning. This is why we should embark on distant and uncertain journeys to the unknown and take the chance that, upon return, we could be treated as pagegers; push the boundaries of the known and discover new, uncharted territories, to come home with new knowledge that will open new layers of creating sense, grandeur and beauty.
 
Literature and sources:
Kruft, H.-W. (1994). A History of Architectural Theory From Vitruvius to the Present (translated by Taylor, R., Callander, E., Wood, A.). London: Zwemmer; Princeton: Architectural Press.
Nesbitt, K. (ur.) (1996). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Vitruvius P. (2009). O arhitekturi (prevod Fedja Košir). Ljubljana: Fakulteta za arhitekturo.
Yaneva A. (2009). Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: An Ethnography of Design. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.