Igra ustvarjalnosti


teorija in praksa urejanja prostora | številka 1 | leto 2013 | ISSN 2350-3637

Editorial

Alma Zavodnik Lamovšek1, Alenka Fikfak2: The birth of a New Journal

1 Editors-in-charge / UL FGG, 2 Editors-in-charge / UL FA
The launch of a new journal made many a person wonder: Why a new journal? Indeed, these are the times of almost unlimited access to many journals and publications in all disciplines; however, high quality information is getting more expensive by the minute and, as a result, it is becoming less attainable. Our answer was: Perhaps that is precisely the reason! To show that with a great deal of creativity, playfulness and enthusiasm, many things, and not necessarily expensive, can be achieved. Our aim is to make use of state-of-the-art communication technology that enables the running of an electronic journal and open access to the journal. We are developing an open-source journal that will entail a joint effort by the authors of the submissions.

To achieve a high level of quality, we will pursue two lines of thought: interdisciplinarity and a broad international representation of authors and journal users. Both are conditions for the flow of quality knowledge, experience and good practices among a wide circle of experts who deal with different aspects of spatial planning.

The idea behind the founding of the new journal is not a new one; it emerged from a successful scientific monograph entitled »Creativity Game – urban design workshops, urban-architectural workshops and spatial planning workshops«, published in 2012. The main title Creativity Game – which emphasises the need for playfulness in science and profession, and, first and foremost, the need for creativity – was preserved and a subtitle was added: »Theory and Practice of Spatial Planning«.

For the first issue, the members of the International Editorial Board, at our invitation, kindly contributed their insight to the creation of the broad range and interdisciplinarity of the international journal. The featured topics complement each other and without doubt show the broadness and importance of spatial planning that can be seen, in fact, as an overlap of different and numerous disciplines. In their contributions, the authors expose the importance of scientific development in the disciplines that are, by nature, part of applied science, and draw attention to the importance of conceptual thinking, design of spatial scenarios, project approaches, contact with the local community, pursuit of practical, innovative solutions and promotion of creativity, direct transfer of knowledge to students, the evolution of study programmes – the list goes on. However, the focus of the first issue is on the presentation of workshops, competitions and other projects, which are seen as the necessary element in connecting theoretical, scientific and professional experience.

This is a fitting place to thank everyone for their contributions; it is our wish that the journal will soon thrive. We are grateful to the entire team who helped to develop the journal, often on volunteer basis, but full of creative energy. This creative energy should be an encouragement to all future authors, in a joint effort to design quality contributions of the future issues of the Creativity Game journal!

Creative regards,
AF and AZL

Matjaž Mikoš: On the First Issue

Dean of Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Ljubljana, Slovenia
The life around us is a constant interaction between the withering away and fading of the old and obsolete and the formation and birth of the new and modern. In a small territory, as is the case of Slovenia in the global scale, it is truly a bold decision to develop and launch a new scientific journal. Before you is the first issue of the electronic scientific journal with a meaningful title Igra ustvarjalnosti – Creativity Game. In the 20 years of their journey as independent members of the University of Ljubljana, the founders and publishers of the journal, i.e. the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Ljubljana and the Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering of the University of Ljubljana, have taken a step forward in all areas of their work. Despite their separate ways in the education of architects, civil engineers and geodesists, they have maintained an exemplary collaboration in the delivery of study programmes, particularly in the fields of urban studies and spatial planning.

The journal will focus on theoretical and practical views and experience in the planning of the environment where civil engineers and water engineers place their buildings and engineering constructions, while geodesists support and provide the groundwork of contemporary spatial planning. The problems of spatial management in Slovenia is a subject matter that has not been tackled head-on; this may come down to a few issues – the coordination of different interests in land use at different decision-making levels; how to finally apply the knowledge on natural resources into spatial management processes to reduce our vulnerability due to the risks posed by natural phenomena; choice of the best regionalisation and introduction of regions in Slovenia; how to improve different spatial interventions, particularly those related to common interests when planning major infrastructure projects for the common good; and how to use the data of real estate mass valuation for purposes other than taxation. There are many other areas and problems that we encounter on a daily basis and which will be addressed in the journal Igra ustvarjalnosti – Creativity Game. The very title of the journal indicates that in the discourse and pursuit of solutions among experts we should seek new ways, release our inner creativity and tolerantly present the proposed solutions of spatial planning to all stakeholders.

Hence, the journal addresses a wide circle of experts collaborating in spatial planning, without being limited to Slovenia and its special features. In the forthcoming issues, I wish that the journal sees the publication of many engaging, high quality papers dealing with both theory and practice in spatial planning. May it find its proper place among other journals supported by the Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering of the University of Ljubljana, i.e. Geodetski vestnik, Gradbeni vestnik, Acta hydrotechnica and Acta geotechnica Slovenica.

And may Igra ustvarjalnosti – Creativity Game earn its place on your virtual bookshelf.

Peter Gabrijelčič: Spatial Studies Revisited

Dean of Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana, Slovenia
With the birth of the journal CREATIVITY GAME – Theory and Practice of Spatial Planning we wish to open up the field of understanding research activities, from its classic/scientific/research approaches to artistic practices as an aspect of intuitive and emotional research. The new journal may offer an open communication platform for the formation of a »common ground« for all researches in different fields and using different research approaches, who are directly or indirectly involved with spatial issues. We wish to draw attention to the now neglected role of artistic creation as an important form in the research process, and to the much needed collaboration and integration of all forms and levels of research. This is particularly important for the Faculty of Architecture. Namely, in the academic circles of European schools of architecture, the question persists: What s the primary role of the schools: teaching or scientific research? Notably, a half of European architectural institutions has embarked on the road of predominantly theoretical scientific research, abandoning architectural creation as the basic subject matter of teaching, while replacing it with its own para-discourse – this has become a field of science by itself; however, without a significant impact on material realization in architectural practice.

European bureaucracy has proposed to unify the criteria and forms of research work in all European faculties of both technical and social sciences. In doing this, we have completely neglected the long-tasting tendency of the other half of schools which are proving that architectural design is, in fact, an important, if not the most important, form of research work that is specific to our field. When we replace the spatial representation of a concept with text, we replace the complex form of communication with a linear one, which all too often cannot convey the true meaning of the investigated subject.

To illustrate the complexity of optical perception and understanding of a concept by looking at its graphic depiction, let me give an example from fine arts – painting. Years ago, the original Tate Gallery in London hosted an exhibition of one single picture by the painter Édouard Manet: The Execution of the Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, the Habsburg emperor of Mexico, in Mexico. The entire wing of the gallery, several-stories high, was dedicated to the explanation of the painting. The exhibition revealed the entire social and historical context of the painting’s origin, newspapers from the era, painter’s previous studies, his personal experience, friends, social position and education, political views etc. Countless books on the subject matter could hardly replace the impact of the whole message hidden in the painting. We can say something similar about architecture. It would take a very thick book to hold everything that is hidden in the architect’s solution or in the background of the decisions made during a competition. However, for fellow architects a glance at the graphic depiction of a project is enough to perceive the meaning of the solution and the background of the decisions made. Similarly, as Chinese characters hide thousands of years of historical sediment of meanings, whose complexity is difficult to translate into western sentences, the architect – in his research through a project – uses a more complex way of expression than offered by linear scientific writing. A graphic plan is the more clever and compact form of expression that needs no additional textual explanations. If we, architects, do not need a textual description of our research, then who does and who should write it? Usually, this is done by critics and art historians, who, in principle, miss the point. Texts can be written by the authors themselves, but with not enough critical distance, and at the expense of time that might have been better used for communication with colleagues through our own, more complex medium.

In well known studios around the world and in Slovenia, project teams now include copywriters. Rather than mere recorders of events, they become equal team members who take part in the creation of solutions. Such a decision is »scientifically« justified by medical science, i.e. in the distinction between the hemispheres of the human brain, which are in charge of two kinds of thinking – convergent thinking where the functions focus on coming up with a single solution, and divergent thinking where the mind works in a way to find as many solutions, ideas and answers possible. On the one hand, there is vertical thinking where reasoning goes from one point to another, arriving at a single answer, and on the other hand, there is lateral thinking, which progresses in »curves«, thoughts come from »aside«, unexpectedly, and depend on random factors. Edward de Bono argues that lateral thinking is characterised by a wide span of attention. A thinker does not know where his ideas come from nor does he care about it. Ideas come in a meditative state, which is characterised by relaxation of the mind and a high level of personal freedom. Any kind of prohibition, order, control or self-control will immediately stop the process. A creative person excels in both types of thinking. First, lateral thinking is used, giving rise to original thoughts, then vertical thinking – checking, confirming or rejecting. Lateral thinking only may lead to daydreaming, autism, and only vertical thinking leads to dull repetitions of the same operations and sterility of thought. The problem is that lateral thinking is blocked by vertical thinking. Assuming that we need two types of thinking simultaneously, i.e. two types of research, then research focusing on the pursuit of new ideas basically calls for a relaxed atmosphere.

This assumption can by illustrated by a real event from World War II. Time and again, the British tried to destroy the dams of German hydro power plants which provided Germany with an abundance of electrical power, despite the war. The dams were situated in narrow river canyons and they were practically an impossible target to hit during classic air strikes. They engaged the help of Barnes Wallis, an innovator and brilliant army engineer. And what did he do next? Instead of filling in complex forms on hypotheses and study goals, financial deadlines and use of funds, he left the burning London and took his family on a two-week vacation, to the seaside. There, he lingered on the beach, played with the children in skipped stones across the sea surface. And there the idea about the bouncing bomb was born – the idea which lead to successful demolition of German dams. The moral of the story is that lateral thinking and new ideas come in a creative environment, in a liberated territory without limitations and concrete expectations. Provocation is another important tool of creative thinking. Educational processes, upbringing and experience have taught us that thoughts should be logically connected one with another. However, in provocation the thought that follows may be in complete opposition to the previous one, and it may well be wrong. We need a trigger that will give us a fresh viewpoint, an association. In his lecture at the IEDC Bled School of Management, Dr Bill Fisher, Professor of Technology Management at IMD Lausanne, Switzerland, argued that in order to be innovative, you should not be (too) polite. Polite teams will lead you to polite results. However, they cannot be bold (enough) or lead to breakthroughs. Ideas require their own processes – similarly to the flows of materials, money and other means in a company; the best companies are those where the employees have the feeling of total freedom, and the employers the feeling of total control.

The end goal of science and, indeed, arts – including architecture through its artistic practice – is the pursuit of truth. This is their most important mission. Only a true knowledge of the world can help plan a successful future. The process of searching for the truth is the main thing, while art works are a by-product of the search. They are a metaphorical language which helps to bring over the discovery of truth and the basis of new tasks of science and arts. To those who use convergent thinking. I, for one, have no answer about the true mission of art, i.e. of the part of our mind that is controlled by the right hemisphere. What does art express and how does it do it? In his Harvard lecture on Musical Semantics, the famous American composer, pianist and conductor Leonard Bernstein said that music, as an art, is capable of producing a significant expressive power, but that people also have the ability to respond to it in the way that the artist expects us to. Music conveys its message through metaphors, through metaphorical language. It expresses a sentiment of something beyond the real and tangible. Much like in poetry, the metaphor is the source of its expressive strength. In music, the metaphor, as Bernstein sums up after Kant, is »das Ding an sich«, the thing in itself, a reality outside our conscious reality, an extra-conscious existence. Aristotle places poetry halfway between the real and intangible worlds, stating that one can come closest to truth through metaphors. Quintus Tullius Cicero (102 BC–43 BC) is even more resolved, as he believes that a metaphor has the hardest task of naming something that otherwise could not be named, the feelings of a person's inner world.

The role of art is to predict, in its metaphorical way, future change. It is a premonition of the future. On the other hand, architecture builds for the future. We design something that we believe will work in the future, in a way and form that it was conceived and predicted. Hence, the task of architecture as an art form is a translation of the metaphorical, intangible word, as a foresight and premonition of the future, to the real world of tangible forms and organisations. It is a trailblazer for concrete tasks and targeted research and it shapes new paradigms.

Do we truly need two kinds of research in architecture: scientific and artistic? Vertical, scientific thinking is consecutive thinking, lateral thinking skips from one thing to another. Vertical, scientific thinking makes us take one step further at a time. Each step is a continuation of the previous one and the link between them is strong. The validity of a conclusion is checked with the correctness of the steps taken to arrive at the conclusion. In lateral thinking, the steps are not consecutive. We may jump forward, to a new point, and only then fill in the gap behind. Due to the different and, indeed, complementary nature of both approaches, it is beneficial in practice to link both types of experience in one person or in a team, which leads to synergy and encourages innovation in both research poles. In the words of Oscar Niemeyer: »After I sketch a design on paper, I try to describe it in a few words. If it cannot be done, I throw the paper away and start again.« At the 16th meeting of heads of schools of architecture in Chania, Crete, we, the deans, asked ourselves what and how to teach in today's unclear and changeable times. The more scientifically focused ones promoted a larger number of specialised courses or very narrow specialisations. I believe that university students must be supported in their growth into both intellectuals with the ability of abstract thinking and experts in the relevant field. This universal ability of thinking will enable a larger employment flexibility in our own and other fields, and provide a »common ground« of communication and connection with other disciplines. To achieve this, the students will need creative peace where a free transition through project tasks from the lower to the higher levels of abstraction is possible. This is a process of maturity that cannot be skipped if we want to shape inquisitive, inventive and critical thinkers, and socially and professionally motivated intellectuals and architects. And researchers who will be able to connect both poles of creative research.
 
Literature and sources:
De Bono, E. (2000). Lateralno mišljenje. New Moment, Ljubljana.
Pfefferkorn, K. (1988). Novalis: A Romantic's Theory of Language and Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Baumgarten, A. G. (1985). Filozofske meditacije o nekim aspektima pesničkog dela; prevod iz latinščine Aleksandar Loma, Beograd : Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod.
Niemeyer, O. (2000). My Architecture. Editora Revan, Rio de Janiero.

Andrej Pogačnik: Integrated Planning

Univeristy of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Slovenia
Saying that the time is (over)ripe for the launch of a new journal in our field might sound as a cliché. An attempt should be made to argue why a certain field – in this case spatial planning – needs its own periodical. First, We we have to look back in the past of our professional journals. In our territory, as elsewhere in Europe, the first periodicals focused on art history and architecture. This was the case with Dom in svet ('the home and the world') that was published before World War II. After the war, two journals dominated the scene, i.e. the strongly functionalist journal Arhitekt ('the architect') and, later, Sinteza ('synthesis'). As can be inferred from the name itself, the latterwas intended for presentations fromcatered for the integral circle of all fine arts.

Saying that the time is (over)ripe for the launch of a new journal in our field might sound as a cliché. An attempt should be made to argue why a certain field – in this case spatial planning – needs its own periodical. First, We we have to look back in the past of our professional journals. In our territory, as elsewhere in Europe, the first periodicals focused on art history and architecture. This was the case with Dom in svet ('the home and the world') that was published before World War II. After the war, two journals dominated the scene, i.e. the strongly functionalist journal Arhitekt ('the architect') and, later, Sinteza ('synthesis'). As can be inferred from the name itself, the latterwas intended for presentations fromcatered for the integral circle of all fine arts. Urban design and spatial planning rarely found their way into the journal. The fast development of urban design saw the growing need for a journal that would focus on urban studies and planning, which gave rise to a new journal Urbani izziv ('urban challenge'). From then on, architects became formed a closed circle that focused onwhose presentations ofpublications covered architectural design; Arhitektov bilten /Architect’s Bulletin has been engaged in a confident dialogue with the achievements of European architectural art, theory and criticism. The Ljubljana school of architecture (Faculty of Architecture) publishes its own Magazine AR Architecture, Research, which is, in the first place, suited to the needs of its own circle of teachers and researchers. In an unequal fight contest for its own periodical, the field of landscape architecture also wanted its own journal; however, after its initial success, Pejsaž in prostor ('landscape and the environment') was discontinued.

In the second part of the 20th century, spatial planning quickly established itself; however, papers on spatial planning appeared in Urbani izziv and in other professional and trade journals intended for their own professional circles and disciplines, such as Dela ('works') – the central journal of geography, IB Revija – journal of macro economy, and Lex localis (Lex localis – Journal of Local Self-Government) – journal of political and social sciences. In recent years, spatial planners have published in Geodetski vestnik (Journal of the Association of Surveyors of Slovenia). Indeed, Geodetski vestnik has also covered the environmentspatial issues, that is, within the scope of geoinformation sciences, which include cartography, cadastre and real estate problems, i.e. areas that are the core subject matter of the journal.

As can be seen, periodicals in Slovenia are rather fragmented and, due to the small Slovenian market, i.e. of authors and readers, they are on the borderline of economic viability. The solution is either to choose longer intervals between issues – from once every few months to once a year – or strong internationalisation. In the circle of scientific and professional press, Slovenia – as a country, a nation, and a specific area – has had, and will always have, its own niche and recognisability, which will attract attention of European and global readers. To sum up, we are »condemned« to costly and time consuming representation of each discipline / science / arts abroad. This also applies to spatial planning.

Putting Thethe flood of professional and scientific press aside, the (self)critical realization is that, indeed, the journals were have been established also because to provide for the needs of the race for points awarded for publications, and, naturally, the international recognisability of individual journals. The extremely high competition in globally acknowledged journals meant that it was necessary to find a place in regional and national periodicals with easier access for »local« authors.

In short, Slovenia needs a journal in spatial planning. It may be that its content will involve urban design, rural studies, architecture, geoinformatics, ecology and other areas; however, the integrated environment must be its central subject matter. This also applies to the interdisciplinarity of studies and professional achievements in the real environment. Its focus should be less on specific studies and presentations of spatial organisation related to urban design, agriculture, forestry, traffic, water management, energy engineering, tourism, environmental protection, and rather more on their connectivity and upgrading in a cultivated landscape tailored to today’s needs. It is not enough to have well designed settlements, fields, forests, river engineering measures, protected nature parks – the focus should be on their connectivity in a sequence of land use and network infrastructure. On this basis, any kind of spatial »criteria« can be used: local micro space, municipal, regional, state and European levels, and global thinking.

The 21st century is well underway and – in the time of information society, glocalization and due consideration of international criteria – the journal has been developed accordingly: it is published in electronic format in English. Domestic authors may also publish in Slovene, which will help to preserve and develop Slovenian terminology in spatial planning. The journal has an international board of reviewers, and from the start, the manuscripts should be of the highest and internationally comparable quality. In the beginning, the journal should not come out too frequently; this should ease the selection of high quality manuscripts, so that the journal does not exhaust itself – financially, organizationally and content-wise.

The second part of the journal will focus on professional achievements in the real physical environment, with an emphasis on the national (and neighbouring) environment. A special feature will be reports on workshops, both domestic and international, organised by the different faculties of Slovenian universities. Student works, i.e. the most clever and free ones, can show the way to undreamed-of futures of spatial development, and lead to bold solutions and »green« futures of our overpopulated planet. It will also provide a platform for presentation of interesting Master’s and Doctoral theses, which are all too often forgotten or remain unnoticed. The journal should focus on exposing the studies to the critical public, overcoming the proverbial gap between theory and practice, between the »ivory towers« of universities and the battlefield of everyday practice.

To the first journal of spatial planning in Slovenia – best of luck!

Miha Dešman: Why Have an Electronic Journal on Research and Theory in Architecture and Urban Design?

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture, Slovenia
In front of you is the first issue of a new e-journal, published by the Faculty of Architecture and the Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering of the University of Ljubljana. The purpose of the journal is to publish scientific and professional papers dealing with architectural and urban theories, with an emphasis on research that is conducted parallel to teaching, professional and research processes at the faculties and in other settings. In this foreword, I, as the Area Editor for Architecture, focus on the architectural aspects of research; however, I believe that the theses here apply to other disciplines as well.

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.

Mojca Golobič: The Only Future of Landscape Protection Lies in Creativity

University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
For Francesco Petrarca, who was allegedly the »creator« of the term landscape, landscape meant a spiritual experience. Almost 500 years later, Alexander von Humboldt regarded landscape mostly as a subject matter of scientific research. Today, landscape has been the topic of many different disciplines and interdisciplinary approaches. The European Landscape Convention notes that the landscape has an important role in cultural, ecological and social processes, and constitutes a resource favourable to economic activity (Council of Europe, 2000). With the increasing rate of landscape change, which is mostly due to human activities, the landscape has recently been considered under threat, i.e. a value that needs to be protected. The loss of landscape diversity and biotic diversity, overgrowing agricultural land, landscape fragmentation, dispersed settlement patterns are the phenomena that, according to the prevailing professional and political assessments, pose a threat to the landscape (Dejeant-Pons, 2005; Palang et al., 2006; Council of Europe, 2000; Antrop, 2005). The landscape that in the past provided the source of, and inspiration for, human development, became the reason for limiting the freedom in realising the ideas for development.

Contemporary processes of landscape change are a consequence of natural and social factors that are in complex mutual relations and whose dynamics is relatively unpredictable. The response of the society to the complexity and uncertainty in the landscape is prevailingly one of standardisation. This is how we ease our activities in a world that is too complicated to be controlled in a holistic way: we create typologies, classifications, and set standards and norms. Generally, these tools are welcome and efficient in cases when we deal with problems that are very much alike. In space, however, the problems are far from being alike. Each small part has its own structure, special features and history. This is true for natural geographical features, but even more so if we consider the ways that space has been (trans)formed by man; the ways in which man has used, felt, understood it; the nature of the groups who use it and the rate of use – then it is downright impossible to compare one spatial problem to another. In other words, we use simplified solutions to problems that are not simple. The landscape becomes a catchment area, an agricultural land, a forest or a habitat. Space is managed in a way that makes us think that it is possible to take a prevailing feature in the landscape (water, forest, nature) and divide the area among »landowners«, who then have an almost unlimited right to manage the space and to dictate the rules in a »top-down« manner, from their narrow sectoral viewpoint. Today, the average Slovenian municipality has in its territory at least half a dozen of such managers whose demands are more or less strict, and, particularly, who have little feeling for the characteristics of the area, and even less for the needs of the people who live and work there. Such approaches draw their legitimacy from a general belief that decision-making should include more »expertise (knowledge) and less policy«, as the former – in contrast to the latter – is supposedly more objective, unbiased and free of corruption and similar transgressions. The technocratisation of decision-making related to the landscape leads to a fallacy, when we want to derive what is best for a certain area directly from the observations about the current state of the landscape; from facts we derive 'oughts'. As can been seen, the results are not convincing. In practice, errors are mostly not the result of the lack of knowledge, but the result of taking advantage of the power balance in the decision-making among the profession, policy and the public . A diagnosis of the conditions in spatial management could be that, indeed, we protect even too enthusiastically, but not what is really of value in the landscape or under threat, but the influence and social power of the institution or profession that we belong to. In this way both human development and man’s creativity are restricted.

How are we to surpass this rigid, static and self-absorbed circle of unsuccessful protection endeavours that not only hinder the development (which is not always a bad thing), but are also inefficient in its basic protective mission? The answer is, indeed, in creativity which has very little room in today's spatial management. In protection, creativity is not too welcome since, if taken (too) literally, it implies that something new, tangible is to be created; while construction is, by its definition, in conflict with protection. However, the landscape which is dynamic by nature can only be protected creatively; by pursuing solutions that will come close(est) to meeting the desired goal and will be the least burdensome to other users of an area, particularly nature. In the case of nature, which cannot express or defend its interests, we are, as suggested by ethics philosopher Taylor, under a responsibility to search for the least harmful ways of our living in the landscape (Taylor, 1986). As early as in 1969, Sylvia Crowe described the activity of landscape architects as creative protection (Crowe, 1969), which has remained one of the basic professional guidelines to this date. Undoubtedly, creativity requires a certain amount of freedom, room and enthusiasm, which is usually not cultivated in bureaucratic and technocratic minds, but comes from the people who live and breathe the area, who understand all its complexity and think beyond the limits of profession and own interests. In spatial management, the participative approach is no longer an exception today. In the Slovenian practice there is no shortage of (good and less so) cases where solutions were sought based on the inclusion of different groups of users in the decision-making. However, no real effect has been seen. There are many reasons for this. In fact, there are far less cases of exemplary participation than the number of cases labelled as such. Most of this cases get stuck somewhere between communication and consultation, failing to achieve the partner role or, indeed, the decision-making role of the public (measured using the Ladder of Participation by Sue Arnstein, 1969). On the other hand, »the public« is typically too idealised, while its suggestions are often based on poor professional knowledge and unverified assumptions; the search for a consensus is complex and the procedures are long. The biggest concern seems to be the legitimacy of the interests coming through in participative procedures: Who do they really represent? Who verifies the significance of their proposals in relation to the public interest? Who will sign on the dotted line, who is liable and in what way? Because of all these concerns, participation usually remains within the formally organised public unveilings of spatial plans and discussions. At best, the inclusion of public proposals into solutions is seen in initiatives to change spatial plans, which in practice means that Jane’s meadow is turned into a parcel occupied by a house for her son. There is not much room for creativity left there.

A case in point, as summarised below, proves that for the landscape to be included into cultural, ecological and socio-economic processes – which is the goal of the European Landscape Convention – we need to go beyond the sectoral protection mechanisms. The protection of the best agricultural land or Natura 2000 cannot revive the abandoned 177 Gottschee villages that were once inhabited by 28,000 members of the German national community of Gottscheers (in Slovene Kočevarji), while today there is no one left. The walls of the buildings have all but completely disappeared, there are only the remains of wells, traces of terraces on the slopes and, the most persistent reminders of the past: fruit trees and place names. The task was addressed by the students of landscape architecture; their solutions include locations and proposals for development of agriculture, plans for two eco villages, a tourist and local supply centre and a reconstruction plan for the former Rog sawmill. The students also proposed the way to connect the sites with footpaths and bicycle trails and the way to properly represent the topic. They addressed the complex problem by looking outside the limitations of disciplines, and instead learnt from the area and its people; they were creative in developing the proposals that gave new life to the area, in line with the nature, historical setting and needs of modern man. Of course, such student projects cannot be a real alternative to the events in »real life«. However, this (too) is the way to raise the next generations who may have a better understanding of the complexity of space, not only in its physical, but in its social dimension, and who will learn how to use creativity in their work. Students’ work on real cases is an opportunity to learn – not only for them, but for everyone involved: mayors, municipal councillors and administrators, colleagues in professional institutions, inhabitants and teachers. It may be a long way forward, but it is a reliable and, in the long-term, a successful one.
 
Literature and sources:
Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and urban planning 70 (1–2), Page 21–34.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4, Page 216–224.
Council of Europe, European Landscape Convention (2000).
Crowe, S., (1969). Landscape Planning, a Policy for an Overcrowded World. Volume 21 of IUCN Publications: Supplementary papers, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Déjeant-Pons, M. (2005). The implementation of the European Landscape. Accessed on: http://www.visualdiversity.net.
Palang, H., Printsman, A., Konkoly Gyuro, E., Urbanc, M., Skowronek, E., Woloszyn, W. (2006). The forgotten rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe. Landscape Ecology 21 (3), pp. 347–357.
Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature. A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton University Press.

Discussion

Maurizio Bradaschia: Theory and Practice in Architecture, a Reflection

Universita Degli Studi di Trieste, Architettura, Italy
The theoretical analysis is that complex and deep plot that links the technical, artistic and critical activities of each architect (not always present at the same time) to his vision of the world. The term 1 derives from the greek theory theorein which means contemplate, look at, see, observe, attend an event. But, also, meditate, judge, compare, investigate. And all this has, as a synthesis, which result, certainly a choice (of meanings, values, positions). Choosing is itself a projection, a project forward its position, it means somehow design. Therefore make a theoretical reflection, investigate theoretically, is nothing more than a meta-design action. Different, within common choices, the results of theoretical reflection and flow in built-up areas (in the »practice«,2 in the practical application) for each author, more or less authoritative. Different, also and above all, because of any particular historical era.

Any theory in architecture influenced, as in every field of human trials, the events that characterize its time. It is the zeitgeist of each era that influences, guides, »builds« theories and approaches that will inevitably bring with them a wealth of experience, emotions, multidisciplinary influences. A successful project must not only respond effectively to the specific issues that have requested it: desires of the customer relationship with the context, specific local and contingent, but also to the fundamental questions, to their own instances of his era. Architecture, as known, it always has an absolute value because the value is not something that belongs to the form itself, but to the form as a response to some questions3. Questions, moreover, that are not strictly disciplinary but which are widely interdisciplinary4. It is above all the great movements of thought to impose, in some way, lines of research, especially in architecture (for the long time necessary for its realization / implementation), is explicit in subsequent decades.

So it was for the modern movement, born after the end of the great empires, in the affirmation of new social classes, permeated by an unquestionable faith in progress, in science and mechanics. And so it was for all the other »movements« of the last century and the beginning of the current one. Theoretical research in literary and philosophical contexts have led to the emergence of postmodernism, deconstructionism: how not to think of the writings of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze to better understand Peter Eisenman, Daniel Libeskind, Zaha Hadid, a certain period, to the works of Claes Oldenburg to understand Frank O. Gehry, Zygmunt Baumann to analyze the Senday Mediatheque by Toyo Ito, or Paul Virilio, Marc Augé, and many other authors who have been the basis of many theories of the contemporary. Similarly, it is useful to relate to Sigmund Freud, Karl Kraus, Peter Altenderg (writer), Arnold Shoenberg5 (composer and painter), Ludwig Wittgenstein (philosopher devoted himself to architecture), Gustav Mahler, Arthur Schnitzler, Gustav Klimt to better understand Loos or other contemporary authors.

In every age, is known, it would trigger deep relationships between critical design, theory, in each other's perspectives with implications that affect the great movements of thought typical of a particular historical period: these paradigms serve as guides to scientific research and to any type of research, including the theoretical and design in architecture. But, beyond these considerations perhaps discounted, it seems interesting to dwell on how the individual theories, the individual theoretical investigations have also characterized, more or less, the work, the architecture built by some authors. If, for example, it is the big match in the work of Mies and / or Hannes Meyer than theorized: »build, for Mies, was nothing but build, follow the technique with extreme caution« and »build was a problem of knowledge« to Meyer, the same cannot be said for some of the contemporary authors like Greg Lynn, where, according to the writer, to sophisticated architectural theories have not paid equally sophisticated architectural results (the case of the Presbyterian Church of New York is the most example: a building far from representative of the theories of the author expresses himself in a sort of replica of absolutely superior rationalist experiments) or, even, and similarly, the theories of some interest on the architecture of »hypersurface« disclosed by the Columbia University by Stephen Perrella at the end of the nineties, which did not produce buildings of large-scale but small size production objects. It is clear that the end of the last century in the theoretical architecture (especially comparing it with that of the full nine hundred) has gradually become more hybrid and fragmented (as well as in many other disciplines), operating a form of reflection and language of the doubt and withdrawing (son of nihilism proliferating and thought weak due no doubt to the influence of authors such as Gianni Vattimo). The theory, in architecture, has become the order of 900, the preferred form of expression, probably because the architects have started to produce little (and they were, after all, little capable of producing »buildings«), and because the center of the discussion was the written text (the project design or the literary text). In the main schools of architecture (a phenomenon prevalent in Italy) was taught much more architectural culture that architecture itself, and the theme of reflection was really centered on the project, on designed architecture.

It is no coincidence that the major newspapers »educated« people (mainly Italian ones) have paid, at the end of 900, large and more attention to the fantastic architectural drawings of Franco Purini, Massimo Scolari, Arduino Cantafora, rather than the architecture that were realized. And it was the same Purini stating that, after all, the architecture is exhausted into the project design, and the work accomplished, realized, was nothing more than a mediation between the architect, enterprise, client, economic parameters, etc. Indeed, that architecture in its realization, was distorted. However already the first author's works: the House of the Pharmacist or the square of Gibellina show excellent compatibility between the architecture and design of the Opera made. Purini takes the justification of his works, characterized by a strong theoretical coherence and style, right from the design, the Representation of Architecture. The »House of the Pharmacist« in Gibellina, with its four sides are all different from each other due to the context, focus on the subject matter: the architecture is what has been previously shown (and therefore, the author theorized, or even, theoretically experienced before). The architecture for Purini, led its design, which is a research tool through its graphical complexity, placed beyond the typical function of the architecture and the design in which it is to justify the architecture and not vice versa. Purini6 as the first Aldo Rossi7 at the bottom is written proponent of architecture rather than built. And it also links him to one of the leading contemporary architects (the second largest writer) Peter Eisenman. Interestingly, in this regard, to retrace the text (and drawings) CHORA L WORKS of Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman published by Monacelli Press by Jeffrey Kipnis and Thomas Leeser. In this text, as in the numerous writings, it is clear the close relationship that exists - for Eisenman, between theory and design, between theories and projects, in all the different phases of his work: in the first case numbered sequentially, where the experimental geometry regulates and governs the space (much more than they do other components such as the needs of the user, or the light ..., ... or other components of the project), architecture flows from the Rebstock Park in Frankfurt at the Max Reinhardt in Berlin (designed the routes of aircraft flying over the city), or the Theatre of Bruges, drawn from the diagrams of the tides.

Theoretical experiments that manifest physically in the architecture of Santiago de Compostela, making the project look like, assimilating the project to the land it occupies. And certainly not less important than the contemporary theoretical reflections of Robert Venturi shown in the famous text Learning from Las Vegas and Complexity and Contraddiction in Architecture at the base of the majority of 80s post modernists, certainly founding of architecture of the same Venturi and other famous authors such as Leon Krier and Michael Graves8. Or Delirious New York and SMLXL for Rem Koolhaas and KM3 for MVRDV, affirming principles and theories in the experimental design and then applied in professional practice.

Different position than others, of that »trend« that could be ascribed to an experimental neo-rationalism Mediterranean. And the case of authors such as Alberto Campo Baeza, Henri Ciriani, Joao Luís Carrilho da Graça, Eduardo Souto de Moura for which the architecture is and remains the subtle play of forms under light, a kind of poetry made where the Man is at the center of the Architecture and emotions continue to animate and characterize theoretical approaches and works. They are, after all, among the authors of contemporary poetry, for which the transmission architecture is implemented through the universality of the works constructed. For whom, that is, despite the debt to the ideas (the project, each project was born from ideas to become idea built), it is in practice, which is expressed in the built architecture. They are (to use the words of Campo Baeza, but I believe that also applies to the other), the authors of »essentiality« of »more with less«, the poets manufacturers architectures that have »their origin in the Idea, in Light the first material, Space willingness to get more with less«.

But to return briefly to the discourse on the »Design Architecture« (which I consider central to developments nowadays), to remember that in this scene he saw leave the point of view from the »build« to the »design« or better the »draw«, typical of historicism (at the bottom of the Portoghesi’s Strada Novissima - The Venice Biennale underpinned by the presence of the past - had brought back the Beaux Art experience in Architecture), the seventies and eighties, this attitude has developed mainly as a result from deconstructivism / deconstructionism in the eighties-nineties - both debtors of linguistic theory from structuralism to post-structuralism. And as, subsequently, and to date, it is highlighted a kind of multiplication-pluralization-differentiation of viewpoints, reflections from the same fragmentation and instability. The frequent overlap between the subject and body has developed to date a wide proliferation theory emerging in every form of discourse increasingly blurring the boundaries between theory, criticism and project-is the case mentioned by Peter Eisenman, but it is also the case of Bernard Tschumi, in its stress (in Architecture and Disjunction) the inescapable need to rethink the limits of architecture to »bring the architecture to the limits,« or Wolf Prix, - how not to think of the UFA Cinema in Dresden, to the experimentation California designed or implemented within the models, or even to the »heart« of the Biennale by Aaron Betsky and the latest BMW WELT, a building wonderfully catastrophic, a terrible »whirlwind« into the ground to become paradoxically solid architecture.

The theory has become more and more, for architects, a stage, a thought designing and drawing, as well as speaking, writing, teaching.

The theory is today, on the one hand, together represented by projects and thoughts of every architect, from his writings, reflections and experiences that lead each author, consciously, to produce arguments, objects, architecture, projected, to paraphrase the Angel History of Walter Benjamin, towards the future and on the other the »theory« seems to have been devoid of its foundation and its weight by a new »environmental syndrome«, as he called Pierluigi Nicolin, which has opened new avenues suspended between ethics and aesthetics, inaugurated, probably, with the Biennale of Fuksas in 2000.
 
Literature and sources:
1. The term theory (from the greek Θεωρεω theoréo »look, I observe«, composed by Θεα Thea, »goddess« and σραω horao, »I see«) implies, in common language, an idea born on the basis of some assumptions, conjecture, speculation or theory, even abstract than reality. In science, a theory is a set of interconnected assumptions, statements and propositions in order to explain natural phenomena in general or, more generally, to formulate systematically the principles of a scientific discipline. In physics, the term theory typically indicates a complex mathematical equations derived from a small set of basic principles, able to predict the outcome of experiments in a certain category of physical systems. One example is the »electromagnetic theory«, which is usually taken as synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations. The theoretical term, when used to describe a certain phenomenon, which often implies that a particular result was predicted by a theory but has not yet been observed or experimentally confirmed. For example, until recently, the holes blacks were considered theoretical. It is not unusual in the history of physics that a theory makes predictions then confirmed by experiments.
2. S practice. f. [from the Gr. Πρααξζς 'action, course of action, der. Πρασσϖ to 'do'].
1. In general, the practical activity, esp. as opposed to theoretical or speculative activity. In common parlance: a. The exercise of an activity, a profession, an art, and all of the rules that govern it: the p. medical, legal, journalistic. b. Proceed as usual, customary in a particular activity, esp. with reference to activities governed only by general rules and incomplete, not codified in a law or a regulation: p. administrative, p. Constitutional p. parliamentary p. protocol, follow the p., comply with p., is p. Current, in these cases, follow the hierarchical order.
3. cf. the well-known aphorism of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe on the form: »The shape is really a purpose? It is rather the result of the process of giving shape? It is not essential to the process? A small change in the terms does not result in a different outcome? Another form? I do not object to the form, but form only, as its purpose. I do this on the basis of a series of experiences and beliefs derived from these. The form aims always leads to formalism.«
4. It seems to me fundamental reflect on the fact that, in the Bauhaus, Walter Gropius tackles the subject of renewed unity of the arts, fostering the encounter between the emerging avant-garde (Klee, Kandinsky, Theo Van Doesburg), a »new theoretical synthesis«, linking the needs of industrial production to the total renovation of the environment »from the spoon to the city«. Gropius wanted to involve the most advanced of the modern, rationalist component from the neo-expressionist.
5. Interestingly, in this regard, re-read some of the same considerations Schoenberg on scientific research: »It 's our duty to meditate continually on the causes of each artistic result, without ceasing to start from the beginning, always watching and always looking for our order, considering how data elements only the phenomena, the artistic facts, which can be held stable at greater right of every famous speech about art.
Because we know for sure, we will have the right to call »science« what we know of them. Observe a series of works, classify them according to some common characteristics, deduce the laws. That's right, if only for the fact that there are no other possibilities. These laws are true for the works seen up to that point, they can no longer be so for future works.«
6. With the exception of the period of maturity where more professional opportunities and especially the advent of digital fundamentally alter the approach to the project.
7. Until the early 80s Rossi writes about architecture much more than projects; Autobiography scientific public in 1981. In this work the author, »in discrete disorder«, brings back memories, objects, places, forms, notes on literature, quotes, lights and tries to retrace things or impressions, describe, or look for a way to describe. He says himself: »I thought, in this book, to analyze my projects and my writings, my work, in a continuous sequence, including them, explaining them and at the same time redesigning them. But still I have seen how, writing about all this, you create another project that has something unpredictable and unexpected.«
8. The seven dwarfs used by Graves as Caryatids are the extreme theories expressed by Venturi in Learning from Las Vegas.

Papers

Christian Suau:
MINIMUM GAME PLANS: ECO-DESIGN AND LOW-TECH FABRICATION IN STUDIOS
Creative Commons License IU/CG, 1/2013, 34-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.15292/IU-CG.2013.01.034-039

Živa Deu:
Role and Importance of Workshops in the Development of Heritage Protection
Creative Commons License IU/CG, 1/2013, 40-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.15292/IU-CG.2013.01.040-045

Saja Kosanović, Branislav Folić:
GREEN THEMES IN ARCHITECTURAL CURRICULUM – SCOPE AND CONTENT
Creative Commons License IU/CG, 1/2013, 60-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.15292/IU-CG.2013.01.060-067

Projects, Workshops, Competitions and Presentations

PROJECTS
Tigr - Sustainable and Innovative Civil Engineering: The Development of the Building Concept UDK 69:502.131.1 page 108
ATRIUM – Architecture of Totalitarian Regimes of the XXth Century in Urban Management UDK 72.036 page 110
Restructuring of Study Programme in Architectureto Long-Cycle Integrated Master
in Line with Eu Standards (Research) 530440-Tempus-1-2012-Me-Tempus-Jpcr
UDK page 112
WORKSHOPS
Urban Design, Urban-Architectural and spatial Planning Workshops page 114-176
COMPETITIONS
[Imagine Downtown] Lafayette page 180
The Symbol – Design of a Symbol of Different Activities page 182
PRESENTATIONS
Smart Urbanism: Innovative Approaches to Urban Planning and Design page 186
International Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Legal Issues: International legal standards
for heritage protection in a period of economic recession and tools for safeguarding protection standards
page 188


CELOTNA REVIJA
PDF datoteka - 11.86M