Čas, ki ga živimo, zaznamuje na eni strani razkroj tradicionalnih socialnih in obnašanjskih vzorcev, na drugi pa rastoči konzervativizem in antiliberalizem. Ta paradoksalna situacija vzbuja nelagodje pri ljudeh in jih sili v skrajne opredelitve, ki pa, kot vedno, tudi danes evocirajo monstruoznosti in producirajo monstrume. Preseganje tega razcepa ni možno z bližnjico uvajanja nove paradigme, ampak kvečjemu s pazljivim sestavljanjem razpršenih koščkov sedanjosti v neko manj konfliktno, čeprav provizorično celoto.

Predpostavke o celosti projekta, o homogenosti tipoloških repertoarjev in o skupni veljavnosti jezika se pač še preveč ujemajo s stališčem, da je arhitektura instrument za kontrolo okolja v celoti. Na ta način to stališče avtomatično evocira urbane in arhitekturne, predvsem pa mišljenjske modele iz preteklosti. Ti modeli so lahko postmoderni revival klasicistične eklektične arhitekture 19. stoletja ali neoracionalistične ideje modernega projekta prve polovice 20. stoletja. To oziranje v preteklost pa s sabo nosi nesposobnost zaznavanja tega, kar se v resnici dogaja okrog nas. Če pa se ne zavedamo realnosti, kako naj potem vplivamo nanjo? S parolami in prepričevanjem o nujnosti vračanja v idilo prejšnjih obdobij že ne. Najverjetneje tudi koncept nazaj v prihodnost ni uporaben. Arhitektura si mora smisel in uporabnost poiskati tukaj in zdaj in ne s sklicevanjem na preteklost.

Razcep med zavestjo, ki jo arhitektura goji o sami sebi in med realnostjo, ki jo živi, je tudi za arhitekte vedno bolj boleč in jih sili v ponovno premišljevanje o lastnem položaju, potencialih in perspektivah v realnem okolju, v katerem živijo. Poplava raznih izmov in iz njih izpeljana masovna medializacija, ki je svoje vrhunce doživela lani s spektakularnimi predstavami kot sta bili IBA v Barceloni ali Beneški biennale, se vse bolj kaže kot slep rokav in izpraznjen ritual. Zanimanje za razna gibanja ter izme peša, zamenjuje ga ukvarjanje s posamičnimi projekti.

Rešiti arhitekturo odgovornosti, ki jih ne more več nositi, ter maksimalno izkoristiti to novo pridobljeno svobodo, pravi nekje Rem Koolhaas, ko razglaša konec hegemonične arhitekture. Meri k sintezi arhitekturne teorije, prakse in realnosti - skratka, k preseganju akademizma, v katerega sta zašli tako pozno-moderna kot post-moderna arhitektura. Korozivna moč politike, konteksta, ekonomije, globalizacije - realnosti v njeni celovitosti - v reciklažnem postopku vsaj simbolično razporeja fragmente realnega v skladu s prenovljenimi kanoni arhitekture, in s tem nakazuje razreševanje kontradikcij, na katerih sta si polomila zobe tako modernizem kot postmodernizem: kontradikcij med kvaliteto in kvantiteto, med prosvetljenim despotizmom in demokracijo, med avantgardo in retrogardizmom.

Vse bolj se tudi pri nas oblikuje epistemološki prelom med danes etablirano kritično distanco generacije 68 z njeno intelektualno uporniško in kasneje elitarno držo, njenimi hippie vrednotami ter aktivistično etiko, in novo, prihajajočo juppie generacijo 90-ih, ki jo na eni strani označuje odpoved revolucionarnosti in prezir do idealov in ideologij, na drugi pa kritična vpletenost in pragmatično delovanje znotraj danih pogojev, oziroma kreiranje pogojev za lastno delovanje. In prav ukvarjanju s kreiranjem pogojev za arhitekturo in s tem večanjem njene operativnosti je namenjena ta številka. Vsi članki so bili napisani posebej za ab. Provokativno in zanimivo temo je iniciral in pomagal urediti arhitekt Boštjan Vuga.

The time we live in has been marked by disintegration of traditional social and behaviour patterns on one hand, and by growing conservatism and anti-liberalism on the other. This paradoxical situation gives a feeling of uneasiness to people, and forces them to take extreme positions which, as always, evoke monstrous deeds and produce monstrous results. It is impossible to surpass this fissure with a short-cut new paradigm. The only possible way is to carefully collect the dispersed fragments of the present and put them together into a less conflicting, although provisory, whole.

The presumptions about the unity of a project, about homogeneity of typological repertories and of a common value of the language still correspond well to much of the concept that architecture is an instrument for the control of the environment as a whole. Such a concept thus automatically evokes urban and architectural but above all thinking patterns from the past. These patterns could be a post-modern revival of the 19th century classicist eclectic architecture, or of the neo-rationalistic idea of the 20th century project of modernism. Looking back in the past, however, also brings along the incapability of perceiving what is really happening around us. If we are not aware of our reality, how can we influence it? Certainly not with slogans and persuading people of the necessity to return to the idyllic times of the past. The “back to the future” concept, on the other hand, is not of much use either. Architecture needs to find its sense and application here and now, not by referring to the past.

Architects find the split between the idea architecture has about itself, and between the reality of the situation in which architecture exists, more and more painful. It forces them to rethink their own situation, potentials and prospects in the real environment they live in. The wide range of “-isms'”resulting in the mass-medialisation which experienced its peaks last year with spectacular shows like the IBA in Barcelona or the Biennial in Venice, appears more and more to be a dead-end and an emptied ritual. The interest into different movements and “-isms” is decreasing, and it is being replaced with work on single projects.

“To save architecture from its responsibility that it can no longer carry, and to enjoy to the maximum extent this newly acquired freedom,” says Rem Koolhaas when he proclaims the end of hegemonic architecture. He points towards a synthesis of architectural theory, practice and reality - in short, towards the surpassing of the academism in which both late modern and post-modern architecture lost their way. The corrosive power of politics, context, economy, globalisation - reality in its wholeness - at least symbolically rearranges the fragments of reality in the recycling process in accordance with the renewed architectural cannons, thus indicating the solution of contradictions that were the rock both modernism and post-modernism split on: contradictions between quality and quantity, between enlightened despotism and democracy, between the avant-garde and retrogardism.

In our space also the epistemological division is becoming ever more evident between the presently established critical distance of the '68 generation with its intellectual revolt and later on elitist position, its hippie values and activist ethics, and the new coming yuppie generation of the 90's, defined on one side by the denouncement of revolutionary ideas and contempt of ideals and ideologies, and on the other by critical involvement and pragmatic activity within the given conditions, or creation of conditions for its proper activity. The present number is dedicated to the creation of conditions for architecture and the resulting growth of its operativity. All articles were written exclusively for the ab magazine. This provocative and interesting theme was initiated and co-edited by architect Boštjan Vuga.