“Through tectonics, the architect may make visible, in a strong statement, that intensified kind of experience of reality which is the artist’s domain-in our case, the experience of forces related to forms in a building.
To me, tectonics carries a primordial connotation. The word summons images of primitive structures, for example the trilitic system, elemental assemblies of mass and load. There is a sense of gravity to it, both literal and symbolic, as if tectonics belongs to the origins of building rather than its refinements.
The image of the shifting of tectonic plates beneath the visible earth surface comes to mind as I read your comment—here it would embody force, pressure, balance or imbalance, while also creating tension, interest, and friction at the core level.
The inclusion of the human experience of tension, cantilever, potential/inherent energy v. kinetic… for me, what is presented here starts to delve into this. The experience of beauty as defined firsthand v from afar? In architecture, this changes everything.
I can see, given where architecture has been going, why the term may be overused or misused.
For me, the ‘edge’ is what is suggested—of what? Design that makes sense v that which ‘exudes’ something more? Subjecting the human to force rather than balance, redefining beauty as…? Brutalism comes to mind. Not a thing of beauty, but beautiful in its own existence.
This is an interesting article written a few years back which may be useful for one side of the debate on better defining tectonics —leaning into human transcendent experience.
Your exploration of Sekler's tectonic theory is incredibily thougtful and well researched. The connection you draw betwen Kant's aesthetic catagories and tectonic expression is particulary illuminating for understanding this often misunderstood concept. I apreciate how you acknowlege the tension between phenominological experience and contemporary formalist approaches. This kind of rigorus theoretical work is esential for pushing architectural discourse foward.
My understanding and apparently application of tectonics is much simpler (according to a good friend and very good architect) and that is he says: that either I do most of my projects in a tectonic way or they appear “stereotomic”.
This comparison helps to understand tectonics as the opposite of mass/massive, grounded even contextual or situational in stereotomy.
Therefore tectonic architecture is lighter, not just in weight but also visually. The structural elements are often apparent or exposed.
The über example could be the Pompidou or any early Norman Foster building. The Eisenmann house you mentioned is amazingly tectonic because the walls are structure as well as organizational.
I tend to have the result of both tectonic and stereotomic structures but the approach is tectonic because I use the structure as part of the design process from conceptualization to execution.
Or, like with Augustus, you can't forget maybe the most famous camouflaged tectonic support for another marble statue of massive weight, Michelangelo's rendering of David. The gnarled stump by his right leg serves as a necessary buttress to help support the weight of this colossal sculpture.
To me, tectonics carries a primordial connotation. The word summons images of primitive structures, for example the trilitic system, elemental assemblies of mass and load. There is a sense of gravity to it, both literal and symbolic, as if tectonics belongs to the origins of building rather than its refinements.
The image of the shifting of tectonic plates beneath the visible earth surface comes to mind as I read your comment—here it would embody force, pressure, balance or imbalance, while also creating tension, interest, and friction at the core level.
The inclusion of the human experience of tension, cantilever, potential/inherent energy v. kinetic… for me, what is presented here starts to delve into this. The experience of beauty as defined firsthand v from afar? In architecture, this changes everything.
I can see, given where architecture has been going, why the term may be overused or misused.
For me, the ‘edge’ is what is suggested—of what? Design that makes sense v that which ‘exudes’ something more? Subjecting the human to force rather than balance, redefining beauty as…? Brutalism comes to mind. Not a thing of beauty, but beautiful in its own existence.
This is an interesting article written a few years back which may be useful for one side of the debate on better defining tectonics —leaning into human transcendent experience.
https://acsforum.org/tectonics-and-spirituality-in-brutalist-architecture-phenomenological-reflections/
Your exploration of Sekler's tectonic theory is incredibily thougtful and well researched. The connection you draw betwen Kant's aesthetic catagories and tectonic expression is particulary illuminating for understanding this often misunderstood concept. I apreciate how you acknowlege the tension between phenominological experience and contemporary formalist approaches. This kind of rigorus theoretical work is esential for pushing architectural discourse foward.
Super interesting reading and great references.
My understanding and apparently application of tectonics is much simpler (according to a good friend and very good architect) and that is he says: that either I do most of my projects in a tectonic way or they appear “stereotomic”.
This comparison helps to understand tectonics as the opposite of mass/massive, grounded even contextual or situational in stereotomy.
Therefore tectonic architecture is lighter, not just in weight but also visually. The structural elements are often apparent or exposed.
The über example could be the Pompidou or any early Norman Foster building. The Eisenmann house you mentioned is amazingly tectonic because the walls are structure as well as organizational.
I tend to have the result of both tectonic and stereotomic structures but the approach is tectonic because I use the structure as part of the design process from conceptualization to execution.
Thanks! Cheers from Mexico!
H.
Or, like with Augustus, you can't forget maybe the most famous camouflaged tectonic support for another marble statue of massive weight, Michelangelo's rendering of David. The gnarled stump by his right leg serves as a necessary buttress to help support the weight of this colossal sculpture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29