Včasih se je treba vprašati, kaj neka stvar v resnici je, in ne, kaj je bila nekdaj ali kaj naj bi nekoč bila. To velja tudi za arhitekturo kot umetnost: za umetnost v arhitekturi in za arhitekturo v umetnosti. Ker ne vem vnaprejšnjih odgovorov na zgornje vprašanje oz. vem, da je odgovorov lahko več, si jemljem vsebino te številke za alibi pri samospraševanju oz. za alibi pri špekuliranju z nekimi možnimi, čeprav poenostavljenimi odgovori na vprašanja, ki izhajajo prav iz vsebine te številke.

(vpr): Ali je arhitektura umetnost?

(odg): Arhitektura je lahko umetnost, ni pa nujno vsaka gradnja umetnost. Nasprotno, večina gradnje ima z umetnostjo bolj malo skupnega, nekatere arhitekturne stvaritve pa sodijo brez dvoma med najvišje umetniške dosežke, tako v klasični kot v moderni dobi.

(vpr): Ali je arhitektura kot umetnost poetični izraz tektonske podstati gradnje, namreč strukture in konstrukcije?

(odg): Vsekakor. Arhitektura je umetnost prostora, konstrukcije in strukture, podobno kot kiparstvo, sta pa pri njej poleg konstruktivne neobhodno prisotni tudi utilitarna in socialna dimenzija, vse to pa od nje zahteva drugačno kompleksnost in ji onemogoča neobremenjeno radikalnost, kakršno si včasih lahko privoščijo nekatere druge umetniške zvrsti.

(vpr): Kakšen je odnos med arhitekturo in drugimi zvrstmi umetnosti?

(odg): Pri arhitekturi gre vedno za volumne, ki so določeni s funkcijo. Arhitektonska oblika je blizu grafični obliki. Je oblika komuniciranja, ki je v osnovi bolj površinsko in izhaja iz odvisnosti od funkcije. To zahteva od nje izjemen napor v iskanju ravnotežja med kolektivnim, umetniškim in utilitarnim. Prav ta nesvoboda pa paradoksalno omogoča tudi izjemno poglobljene in natančne umetnine, ki so bile in so marsikdaj še vedno nedoseženi vzor, od Partenona preko Michelangelovih do Plečnikovih in Miesovih del.

Specifika umetniške forme je njena onkrajfunkcionalna, nematerialna, nazadnje nesporočilna kvaliteta. Zastavitev problema je pri čisti umetnosti bistveno drugačna kot pri arhitekturi. Imata seveda tudi mnoge skupne elemente. Med drugim obe težita k upoštevanju najrazličnejših vpletenih političnih in drugih dejavnikov, kot so zgodovina, locus, medijska realnost, čas in prostor itd. Sodobna arhitektura ponavadi ne uspe zajeti kompleksnosti časa in prostora, naj bosta še tako omejena. Življenje je pač vselej neskončno bolj resnično od nje. Umetnost pa je kondenzacija resnice.

(vpr): Kaj pa sedanjo arhitekturo bistveno loči od drugih umetniških zvrsti?

(odg): Arhitektura se od drugih umetnosti ne razlikuje le po načinu nastanka, ampak tudi po načinu uporabe. Če sta konceptualna svetova umetnikov in arhitektov vzporedna, potem se nikoli ne srečata. Dela umetnikov predstavljajo sama sebe, risbe, načrti ali makete arhitektov pa niso - oz. nikoli ne bi smeli biti - nič več kot orodje predstavitve, kot navodilo za izvedbo dela, ki se utelesi v realnosti, ta pa prinaša druge vsebine in učinke. Res pa je, da je v primerjavi obeh največkrat izpostavljen čisto estetski aspekt.

Umetnost se ukvarja z dvema konceptoma - z lepoto in resnico. V 20. stoletju je ukvarjanje z resnico prevladalo nad ukvarjanjem z lepoto. Resnica je povezana s časom, sedanjostjo oz. sodobnostjo. Resnice se ne predstavlja (upodablja, reprezentira), ampak se jo postavlja (prezentira). Umetnost ima svojo komunikativno valenco - da je bolj resnična od resnice same - in na tem presežku utemeljuje svoj kompleksni kulturni dispozitiv. Za arhitekturno delo je čista estetska umetniška ideja nesmiselna, saj zanika njeno bistvo, ki je izraz kolektivnega in racionalnega smotra.

(vpr): Kaj pa je s socialno dimenzijo v sodobni umetnosti in arhitekturi?

(odg): Umetniki velikokrat osvetljujejo tisto, česar družba noče videti.

Arhitektura je razpeta med tehnično védenje in artistično védenje oz. znanje. Artistično znanje je kompleksno in se ga ne da poenostavljati. Če pa tvegamo in posplošimo, dobimo tale približek oz. špekulacijo:

- umetnost je izraz časa, je poskus kar najbolj subtilne in natančne interpretacije časa, sedanjosti. Zato vzpostavlja zeitgeist, je predhodnica kolektivne percepcije časa. Arhitektura gleda to avantgardno vlogo umetnosti s pozicije retrogarde - z varne pozicije utemeljenosti v kolektivnem in v jeziku. Arhitektura ima socialno vsebino. Beuys pravi nekje: “Arhitektura je nekakšna socialna skulptura.”

(vpr): Na kakšen način pa je možno sodelovanje med njima?

(odg): Gre za dve različni mentaliteti. Sodelovanje je lahko obojestransko spodbudno in lahko dvigne kvaliteto tako arhitekturni kot umetniški stvaritvi, vendar pa je le redko dosežena enakopravna izmenjava med obema praksama. Nerazumevanje se kaže v nekaj tipičnih oblikah:

1. Umetniško delo je zlorabljeno, za kaširanje nerešenih situacij v arhitekturi, za reševanje njenih nedorečenosti, pomanjkljivosti, pomanjkanja idej.

2. Umetniško delo je zgolj okrasek.

3. Umetniško delo je avtonomno do te mere, da gre za aplikacijo umetnine, ne za integracijo. Lahko pa gre tudi za ironični komentar arhitekture s strani umetnosti. Lahko gre za napad na arhitekturo (npr. freske Veroneseja v Palladiovi vili Barbaro).

(vpr): Kje pa so si koncepti v sodobni arhitekturi blizu s sodobno umetnostjo, kje se dopolnjujejo, so komplementarni?

(odg): Če je za Corbusierja arhitektura igra volumnov pod lučjo, je sodobna arhitektura vsaj v nekaterih svojih trendih šla naprej od tega; zanima jo površina, tekstura, in to kot obleka/kultura in kot kemija/zgradba, material, struktura. Tu vidim podobnost konceptov kiparstva in arhitekture: samopodobnost, fraktalnost, ukvarjanje s teksturo itd. so zamenjali kulturne modele, ki so se inspirirali pri jeziku, reprezentaciji. Novi se inspirirajo pri biologiji in fiziki; namesto metafore, ki jo je gojila paradigma racionalizma je v igri infinitezimalnost kot lastnost biologije in računalnika. Ta površina je kulturno lahko še vedno in še bolj Semperjeva koža ali Moorov obli kubizem. Film in še bolj video pa sta medija, ki najbolj avtentično zajameta zeitgeist, hkrati pa tudi topološko/antropološko spremembo človekovega zaznavanja, ki jo je vpeljala komunikacijska doba. Ob tem pa tudi najlaže zajameta gibanje, tisto dimenzijo, ki je pri predstavitvah arhitekture zamrznjena, suspendirana v grafično obliko. Ko beremo načrte ali fotografije, je to gestaltno branje, ki izdaja teološko pozicijo arhitekta - tloris, pogled od zgoraj, prerez, ko pogled potuje skozi stene in strope - umanjka pa paralaktična kvaliteta prostora, namreč njegovo dojemanje skozi gibanje, kar pa je prav bistvena umetniška kategorija, tako pri kreiranju kot pri dojemanju arhitekture.

(vpr): Kam torej cilja vsebina tematske številke Prostor in umetnost?

(odg): Odnosi med arhitekturo in sodobnimi oblikami umetnosti, zlasti upodabljajočimi, so mnogovrstni, kompleksni in zapleteni. Ne zanima nas toliko klasičen odnos med arhitekturo in umetnostjo v smislu monumentalnega ali reprezentativnega programa, ampak na eni strani relacija med umetnostjo, arhitekturo in javnim prostorom oz. mestom, na drugi pa tisti skupni in robni teritoriji in tokovi v umetnosti, ki se ukvarjajo z oblikovnimi in prostorskimi kategorijami, ki so blizu arhitekturi, in pa tista arhitekturna razmišljanja in delovanja, ki so blizu oz. znotraj umetnosti.

From time to time we need to ask ourselves what a certain thing actually is, and not what it used to be nor what it is supposed to become in the future. The same is true of architecture in terms of art; that is for art in architecture and for architecture in art. Because I do not know the immediate answers to these questions, or rather, because I know that there could be several possible answers, I will take the subject of this issue as an alibi in this self-posed questionnaire or speculation with different possible, though simplified, answers to the questions which arise in the current issue.

Q: Is architecture an art?

A: Architecture can be an art. However, not every building construction is a work of art. On the contrary, the majority of constructions have very little to do with art, while on the other hand some architectural creations no doubt rank alongside some of the finest artistic achievements, both in the classical and modern period.

Q: Is architecture, when considered as art, a poetical expression of the tectonic substrate of building, that is the structure and the construction?

A: Definitely. Architecture is the art of space, construction and structure, in a similar way to sculpture. However, architecture necessarily depends on the applied, social dimension besides the constructive one. All this demands a different form of complexity, and prevents architecture from becoming radically indifferent, as is sometimes the case with other artistic branches.

Q: What is the relationship between architecture and other artistic branches?

A: In architecture we always talk about volumes which are determined by function. The architectural form is very close to the graphical form. It is a form of communication which is, in its basis, more superficial and results from its dependence on function. This demands a considerable effort in the search to establish a balance between the collective, the artistic, and the utilitarian. It is this very lack of freedom which makes possible, paradoxically enough, the extraordinarily profound and precise works of art which were, and will in many cases remain, an inimitable model: from the Parthenon and the works of Michelangelo to those of Plečnik and Mies.

The specific characteristics of the artistic form are its ‘above-the-functional’, immaterial, and lastly non-communicative qualities. The structure of a problem is completely different in pure art than in architecture. Of course they have many common elements. Among others they both tend to take into account the involvement of different political and other factors, such as history, locus, media, time and space. Modern architecture usually fails to encompass the complexity of time and space, even when very limited. Life is always far more real from it. And art is a condensed form of reality.

Q: Which are the essential characteristics which divide the architecture of our times from other artistic branches?

A: Architecture differs from other arts not only in terms of generation, but also in terms of application. If the conceptual worlds of artists and architects are parallel, then they can never meet. The works of artists represent themselves, while architectural sketches, plans or models are not, or should never be, more than a tool of presentation, instructions for the realisation of a work which materialises in reality, which brings new contents and effects to the endeavour. It is true, however, that when comparing both architecture and art it is the purely aesthetic aspect that is emphasised, at least in the majority of cases.

Art deals with two concepts: the Beauty and the Truth. In the 20th century, artistic treatment of the Truth has prevailed over the treatment of Beauty. The Truth is linked to the time, the present, the up-to-date. The Truth is not presented (depicted or represented), but is constructed. Art has its own communicative dimension; it is more real than reality itself, and it is by way of this surplus that it justifies its complex cultural disposition. For the work of architecture, a purely aesthetic artistic idea is futile, since it denies the essence of architecture, the essence which is an expression of a collective and rational purpose.

Q: What of the social dimension in modern art and architecture?

A: Artists frequently bring to light those elements which society refuses to see. Architecture is torn between its technical conscience and its artistic conscience or knowledge. Artistic knowledge is complex and cannot be simplified. If we choose to take a chance and to see it in general terms, we get an approximation or a speculation. Art is the expression of time; it is an attempt to interpret time and the present in as subtle and precise a way as is possible. It is for this reason that it is able to establish the Zeitgeist, and it represents a predecessor of a collective perception of time. Architecture sees this avant-garde role of art from the position of the retro-garde; from the safe position of justification in the collective and linguistic senses. Architecture has a social content. According to Beuys: “Architecture is a kind of social sculpture.”

Q: How is cooperation between them made possible?

A: We talk about two different mentalities. Cooperation can be encouraging for both sides and can raise the quality of both architectural and artistic creations. However, an exchange on an equal basis between the two is achieved only in extremely rare cases. Misunderstandings appear in several typical forms:

1. A work of art is misused for filling in the gaps in unsolved situations in architecture, for finishing the unsaid, improving the weak points or compensating for the lack of ideas.

2. A work of art is a mere decoration.

3. A work of art is autonomous to such an extent that its position becomes an application of an artistic creation, not an integration. It can also become an ironic commentary on architecture from the point of view of art. It can become a form of attack on architecture (such as Veronese’s frescoes in Palladio’s Villa Barbaro).

Q: Where do the modern concepts of architecture come together with the concepts of modern art and where do they complement each other?

A: If Le Corbusier considers architecture to be “a play of volumes under the light”, it is true of modern architecture that it has surpassed this notion in at least some of its trends. It is interested by the surface, the texture as clothing or culture and as chemistry or building, material and structure. This is where I see a similarity between the concepts of sculpture and architecture: self-similarity and fractals, dealing with the texture, etc. which replaced the cultural models inspired by language or the representation. New concepts are inspired by biology and physics; instead of metaphor nourished by the paradigm of rationalism, the infinitesimal enters the stage as the characteristics of biology and the computer. This surface, from the cultural point of view, can still be Semper’s skin or Moor’s “round cubism”, and is perhaps even more worthy of such descriptions. Film and video are two media which can encompass the Zeitgeist in the most authentic way, as well as the topological and anthropological change in man’s knowledge, introduced by the era of communication. Besides, they are the most capable of encompassing a sense of movement, that dimension which remains frozen in architectural presentations, suspended in a graphic form. When studying plans or photographs, we experience the Gestalt reading which reveals the architect’s theological position; a ground plan, a view from above, a cross section when the eye is able to travel through the walls and ceilings; but the parallax quality of the space, its perception through movement, is missing. However, this is in fact a crucial artistic category, both when creating and when understanding and perceiving architecture.

Q: Which is then the target of the thematic issue “Space and Art”?

A: The relationship between architecture and modern forms of art, especially fine arts, is varied and complex. We are not interested in the classical relationship between architecture and art in a monumental or representative sense. On one side we deal with the relationship between art, architecture and public spaces or towns, and on the other with those common and border territories and current movements in art which work on design and space categories which happen to be linked closely to architecture, together with those architectural reflections and activities which are bound to (or incorporated in) art.