Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2 Architectural Theory in : Holding on the Past or Looking to the Future?

Yuliya Yankovskaya, Ural State Academy of Architecture and Arts, Russia

Abstract. This paper is devoted to issues in the development of modern-day Russian architectural theory. It considers a number of significant theoretical concepts put forward by representatives of the Russian architectural school. The paper consists of three essays: «From Avant-Garde to Rearguard. Historical lessons from 20th century », «Image and Morphology. From the Perceiving Individual to the Interpreting Individual», «From Architecture of Static Volumes to Variable Multilayered Environments» - which present the author's view of the sources of and possible prospects for theory of architecture in Russia. Keywords: architectural theory; image and morphology; architectural object; processuality and dynamism; environment.

Introduction One of the most important problems that Russian analytical instruments of official Russian architecture faces today is loss of self-identity and architectural theory dating back to the mid-19th development benchmarks. This may be generally century; it is obvious that the contemporary explained by the long time of cultural isolation logical and analytical body of knowledge cannot during the Soviet period, as a result of which coexist with the postulates formulated within the Russian architecture fell out of the international centuries-old methodological framework; architectural process, both conceptually and 3) indiscriminate borrowing of terms from foreign technologically. Currently, Russian architecture is languages in incorrect translations leading to trying to find a way back into mainstream multiplication of notions; architecture, struggling against a dilemma: to 4) orientation to ideal issues, vague cultural values become an imitator of international achievements or and global generalizations, and reduction to create something original. averaged assumptions and anonymous customer; However, the creative potential of Russian 5) orientation to traditional historical and architecture as a successor to the avant-garde‟s spirit theoretical research themes as priorities in of transformation is stifled with ideological architectural science. constraints that keep plaguing Russian architectural 6) There is a crying need for a critique of Russian theory, rendering it conceptually backward and theory of architecture, which has been acutely unable to accept the tendencies that shape felt for the last two decades. A way out of the international achievements. The theoretical stupor crisis in Russian architectural theory might be has brought about stagnation in architectural the development of a subject-oriented theory of creativity, which is mainly oriented to foreign architectural activity pursuing: «re-makes» or historical a la Russe stylizations. 7) methodological renovation; A glance at official Russian architectural theory and 8) orientation of theoretical thought to the needs of research reveals a range of important problems: architectural practice; 1) substitution of architectural theoretical research 9) focus on new forms of practice, with theory by direct transfer and borrowing of ideas and paving the way instead of fixing the present and concepts from the humanities, which has the past. determined overall technological backwardness What follows is the author‟s concept and view of in architecture; the evolution of Russian architectural theory in 2) methodological backwardness and a negative postindustrial society. attitude to methodological issues, with all the

From Avant-Garde to Rearguard. Historical lessons from 20th-century Russian architecture The evolution of contemporary architecture is V.Tatlin, V.Kandinsky, and K.Malevich. And we closely associated with breakthroughs in form that owe it to S.Khan-Magomedov [2], well-known took place in the 1920s. The emergence of new Russian architectural theoretician and historian, that architectural concepts in Russia is usually linked to the ideas of Russian avant guarde have become the names of N.Ladovsky, K.Melnikov, I.Leonidov, popular internationally. The new developments in M.Ginzburg, I.Golosov, the brothers Vesnin; Russian architectural theory were mainly concerned

50 Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2

Fig. 1. From Avant-Garde to Rearguard [Source: from author private archive] with compositional ideas of form building in interaction between simple geometric forms. architecture, and for nearly half a century the theory A.Vesnin emphasized the aesthetic capabilities of of composition held firm positions as one of the materials and constructions, Ya.Chernikov conducted invariable obligatory research subjects in Russian research into graphic combinatorics of regular architectural science. The creative concepts of the geometric shapes and lines and had a considerable above-named architects present a series of premier influence on the development of propaedeutic courses achievements that have deservedly occupied a of composition, which are still taught at a number of significant place in the universal heritage (Fig. 1). architectural schools. However, we should not overlook the fact that a lot Theoretical findings and innovative breakthroughs theoretical ideas relating to form from that period fell of Russian architectural avant-guarde in the 1920s had into oblivion for decades. broad international repercussions, but it was banned Russian architectural avant guarde experienced an in the 1930s among a whole variety of concepts and extensive ideological influence of the formal method movements that were rejected by the Soviet state as in art studies and, later, «left-wing» movements in contradicting Marxism. fine arts. The formal school created Art Studies as a Thus, the rise of the Russian school of scholarly discipline equipped with formal analysis composition in the 1920s connected with Russian techniques to study visual elements that make up the architectural avantguarde was followed by its artistic whole and the rules and principles of their formalisation in the 1940s, when the main objective combination. An important role in the development of of architectural science was proclaimed to be the these ideas belonged to A.Hildebrand and creation of Soviet theory of architectural composition. H. Wölfflin, who had a profound influence on Subsequently, in the 1960s, avant guarde‟s form- Russian scholars as well. Thus, A.Gabrichevsky and generation concepts formed the basis of the V.Favorsky studied in Germany. V.Favorsky propaedeutic courses of composition at Russian translated into Russian «Das Problem der Form in der architectural schools. Composition, a major concept bildenden Kunst» by A. von Hildebrand. of the early 20th century theory of architecture, lost its The development of the formal method and its critical leadership in the theory but maintained its positions in analysis lasted in Russia till the end of the 1920s. architectural propaedeutics and education. In the later The ideas of the formal school received different interpretations of architectural propaedeutics, interpretations in the Russian context. the originality and creativity of the avant-guarde‟s Thus, A.Gabrichevsky connected volume/mass and compositional ideas were largely lost. In its massive space into an indivisible pair as the foundation of turn to compositional propedeutic courses, form generation and as an embodiment of static and architectural education overlooked one of the main dynamic principles. N.Ladovsky and his school principles – focus on design and composition of thought (V. Krinsky, I. Lamtsov, M. Turkus) challenges aiming to develop creative thinking and considered spatial relations as a basis for form independent search for original spatial solutions. generation. They believed that everything else was Although Russian architectural theoretical thought subordinated to the resolution of spatial problems, and is commonly associated with research into architectural composition techniques served to reveal relationships between composition and form in the geometric and other characteristics of an internal architecture, there were other movements along with and external architectural space. I.Golosov gave the the main stream. The most significant of them was the primary place to architectural mass (a large spatial phenomenological movement, which falls outside the form), giving preference to volume in issues of form framework of the established «academic» notions of generation. K. Melnikov assigned primary importance composition so much traditional for Russian to such concepts as internal tension and external ease architectural theoretical thought. of the architectural form. I.Leonidov considered

51 Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2

Fig. 2. Elements of «plastic art experience» [Source: from author private archive]

Today the phenomenological tradition in a fence protecting the individual from the architectural theory, both internationally and in elements. The individual is surrounded with Russia, is associated with the names of western a system of expressive shells arranged around his scholars. However, as early as in the 1920s body, from the clothing to the building and the Alexander G. Gabrichesvky, a Russian art city. Types of shell may be distinguished theoretician and historian, formulated a fundamental depending on the field and character of activity concept that anticipated the later western and and on the degree of its impenetrability, contemporary philosophical and theoretical both tactile and visual. The morphology of interpretations of architectural form generation along an architectural object is two-tiered: the nucleus the phenomenological lines. Unfortunately, it was and the shell, the nucleus/shell and the impossible to get acquainted with A.Gabrichevsky's environment (as the force field of a building, its ideas until very recently. He published most of his projection into space); works on theory of art and architecture in the 1920s, 4) image as a hieroglyph. The image (Gestalt) which were not republished for a long time. Some of is some creative potential realized directly in the his works on art and philosophy of art were not art object‟s form. The form as such is an act; it is published at all and existed in manuscripts. In the immanent to the process; it is secondary, 1930-1960s, A.Gabrichevsky published mainly variable, evanescent. The synthetic reality of the comments on theoretical works of architectural Gestalt is composed of relationships between the classics and on history of art. In the 2000s, a full component being assimilated (Inhalt – the canon, collection of A. Gabrichevsky‟s work was published ready-made forms and materialized elements) and caused a sensation in Russian art studies. and the assimilating component (Gehalt - the For A.Gabrichevsky, the fundamental issue was creative principle) where the image is an that of primary elements in «plastic art interpenetration of the element of becoming experience» [1]: space and mass, thing and life, (Werden) and the element of being (geworden). nucleus and shell. Leaving aside the pair «space- During the period of its development, the mass», which has been given a lot of attention in Russian phenomenological school had no actively architectural theory, both Russian and international practicing architects/followers capable of linking (in its «solid-void» interpretation), we will try to this theory with advanced design practice, materials identify issues that are more relevant to the origin of and constructions. The phenomenological concepts the phenomenological movement in Russian were untimely in the 1920s, when there were no architectural studies in the 1920s (Fig. 2): today‟s shell forms, «nonlinear» materialisations of 1) the bodily character of spatial experience. gesture or vanishing, changeable, fully transparent The body is a carrier of primary contents: it is the multilayered barriers. main criterion for the set of values within which Gabrichevsky‟s complex theoretical concept had things are arranged depending on proximity to like minds such as V.Kandinsky, P.Florensky, the individual, and a symbol of the three vital V.Favorsky, and followers such as D.Arkin, instincts (self-preservation, assimilation, V.Markuzon, etc. But the political and ideological reproduction), situation in Russia in the 1920s was not conducive to 2) thing as the fixing of a useful human gesture. its development, and Gabrichevsky himself had The thing manifests its use through the form, the predilection for and form captures and immortalizes the human neoclassical architecture rather than latest gesture and makes a sign of it. The matter architectural forms. As a result, the Russian acquires the character of a gesture as a result of phenomenological school did not happen, but its resistance to the space that presses against the ideas anticipated a number of tendencies that were shell. There are two distinct types of gesture : later developed by western theorists of architecture plastic – a gesture creating a plastic value, and such as J.Itten, С. Norberg-Schultz [5], Ch. Day and dynamic – a gesture enveloping the nucleus; that came to Russia much later, including through 3) form as a trace of the living on the dead, a kind the interpretations of foreign authors such as of shell/boundary between Self and non-Self, M.Heidegger, M.Merleau-Ponty [4], P.Riccoeur, etc.

52 Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2

In spite of all the dissimilarity between the of the compositional school may be derived from it, essentially positivist «academic» theory of but not vice versa. It looks to the origins – the bodily composition and the phenomenological character of spatial experience and, accordingly, the interpretation of form by Gabrichesvky they had a «barrier-ness» of form; whereas the school of common root, which was the formal method. composition is concerned with regulation of form- They influenced each other, particularly at the initial building creative activity. Gabrichevsky‟s stages, but these two approaches are different phenomenological concept sought to unravel human philosophically: values and meanings in the vital form-building 1) in the theory of composition, the basis is the gesture and its fixing as a «trace» in material form. position of the individual who stands opposed to The Russian phenomenological ideas in theory of the architectural object, and the character of his architecture formulated by Gabrichevsky are in line perception (mainly visual) determines with the contemporary humanistic views of the role approaches and suggests techniques and rules for and place of the subject in the world. It is to be creating new objects; hoped that they will not remain just history and find 2) in the phenomenological concept, the basis is the their way into modern-day architecture. position of the individual experiencing his bodily Today‟s reflective, transparent, ghostly, nonlinear presence in the world of things where the vitality architectural forms may benefit a lot from form- of his gesture leaves a trace on the dead matter generation concepts such as nucleus-shell, and generates an object (or a system of objects) shell-boundary, spatial volume, and gesture as a shell/boundary between Self and non-Self. and trace, which seem to be more in line with the The phenomenological approach may be material and philosophical context of regarded as conceptually primary, as all postulates contemporary architecture.

Image and Morphology. From the Perceiving Individual to the Interpreting Individual In the context of consumer society, architectural 2) from the idea of socio-cultural determination of activity should allow for a variety of values perception to the issue of «meaning», maintained by both the consumer and the architect, with a corresponding shift in emphasis from form the engineer, the developer, the contractor, etc. building to meaning expression by means of Thus, it is important to understand the new role and architectural form; place of the subject in the modern world and manage 3) from emphasis on the role of the languaged interactions between the architect and other subject/interpreter who assigns meanings to participants of the design process. material object to the priority of the In Russia, the evolution to this understanding has subject/customer in architecture and inter-subject been connected with the development of ideas of form interactions in the design process. under the influence of various philosophical and In this context, there are two modern-day Russian psychological concepts relating to the «perceiving architectural concepts, by Ilya G. Lezhava and individual», the main ones being behaviourism, Alexander G. Rappaport, that are worth considering. Gestalt psychology, the functional and formal Both concepts are not alien to the phenomenological schools, the activity approach, the cognitive ideas but they interpret differently the role and place approach, and the phenomenological approach, of theoretical research in architecture. with their different interpretations of the concept of Ilya Lezhava - a futurist of the 1960s and «image». These interpretations range from full denial ideologist of the Soviet «paper architecture» as in behaviourism and holistic perception as in movement of the 1980s. According to him, Gestalt psychology to those associated with the to deconstruct the traditional theoretical views we activity of the subject in the material world such as need to [3]: reflection and conceptualisation (the activity 1) overcome the functional determination of approach); image as a semiotic tool architecture and place emphasis on the essential (cognitive approach); image as a form of attitude to poly-functionality of architectural form; the world and interaction with Dasein including 2) emphasize the subjectivity of interpretations in a number of ontologic layers and sensory attributes semiotic concepts of architecture on the one hand (the phenomenological position reinstating the and demonstrate the limitation, descriptive objective status of image in its rights). character and lack of practical output from such Generally, the concepts of image and form have concepts on the other hand; been progressing (Fig. 3): 3) demonstrate the limitations of traditional object- 1) from concepts of visual perception by some oriented architecture and art criticism terminology abstract individual to those of the „Interpreting and its failure to meet contemporary requirements; Individual‟ who humanizes architectural space 4) demonstrate the ineffectiveness of traditional with his presence; architectural-psychological research into form

53 Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2

Fig. 3. From the Perceiving Individual to the Interpreting Individual [Source: from author private archive]

a) b) c) d) Fig. 4. Structural components of the image (a) – orientation; b) – recognition; c) – interpretation; d) - intuition) [Source: from author private archive] and promote transition to the «barrier» The semiotic mechanisms of image formation concept of architectural form and search for feature certain conditions and specificity. the «foundations / principles of architectural The conditions are the duality of the textual and geometry» that can help understand the essential activity functions, subjectivity of perception, narrow-mindedness of architectural theory as relevance and momentariness of experiences. a theory of architectural form. The specificity of the semiotic mechanisms in Alexander Rappaport's concept is less architecture consists in dialogue between the revolutionary, following the humanitarian individual and the architectural object whereby interpretation of architectural theory. At its forefront the architectural object plays a twofold is the problem of architectural myth as a carrier of role - it defines the scene of action and acts as form and meaning. Myth in architecture manifests a communication tool that: itself in the problematics of the local and the global. 1) produces meanings in the process of interpretation; Myth as an idea becomes the mainstay of 2) is a condition for entering into social relationships architecture that lost faith in the firmness of its with others, where the meaning is a result rationales. Spatial concepts of architecture are of social interaction; interpreted as carriers of rational ideas as opposed to 3) prepares and defines the place of the bodily tectonic aspect of architecture, which is a possible event, generating essentially new revealed through the Dionysian, spontaneous world unpredictable meanings. outlook. The rationalistic spatial architectural Image is the basic concept for describing inter- concept enters into conflict with the utter subject interactions in architecture and introducing processuality of the current, rapidly changing world. a value component into design activity, The destiny of architecture in humanitarian culture which is essential for meeting various human needs unfolds itself through the construction of in architecture. The image of an architectural object contemporary mythology of architecture [6]. as the basis of the communication process The reference points of architectural theory shift may be structured based on a certain model. from the object to the subject and, thus, from the One such model is suggested below. The specific Perceiving Individual to the Interpreting Individual. feature of this model is the processuality and layered Therefore, the author of this paper sees the link structure of the image and the operation of semiotic between the image as carrier of meanings and the mechanisms that control the formation of layers. morphology of architectural object as the most These structural layers/components of the image significant direction of development for represent various value manifestations (Fig. 4): contemporary architectural theory. 1) the orientation component forms a psychological Inter-subject relationships in architectural design action space that determines the character of may be described with the help of a concept of movement and emotional states of mind; «semiotic mechanisms in architecture», i.e. it is dominated by the bodily sensory component; communication mechanisms that determine the the semiotic mechanism of the orientation image of an architectural object and regulate component establishes relationship between the the behaviour of the individual.

54 Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2

Fig. 5. The bodily spatial aspect is described by the system «barrier – stimulus» [Source: from author private archive] material characteristics of architectural object These images reflect, to a varying degree of and perception stereotypes; divergence, the set of ideas about the functions, 2) the recognition component restricts the field of structure, comfort, identity and socio-cultural meanings by functional attribute and is importance of the architectural object. It then characterized by the priority of the cognitive becomes increasingly important to secure component; the semiotic mechanism of the the preferred images in the morphological structure recognition image establishes relationship of the object. between the model idea of architectural object It is obvious that the sensorily perceived and culturally determined speech equivalent; morphological basis of architectural object cannot be generates secondary meanings attached to the reduced to compositional, typological or other designation and performs the function of characteristics, which is the traditional way of communication of information about the use describing morphology in architectural studies. of the object; We need to identify fundamental components that 3) the interpretation component generates a range underlie the «encounter» between the individual and of socially predetermined meanings and the material-spatial world and mark its location. subjective connotations; it is characterized by the Such basic component is given by «barrier», which priority of the cognitive component; the semiotic limits movement and defines space for possible mechanism of the interpretation component action. It is supplemented with a «stimulus», performs the functions of translation of pictorial coordinating and stimulating possible movements of iconic representations, sensations and states of the individual. We deal here with an essentially dual mind in the architectural environment into approach to describing the morphology of an a natural language and generation of meanings architectural object: bodily spatial description during translation, and the function of introducing the position of the subject, semantic memory; and geometric description which does not include 4) the intuition component represents the Dasein the position of the subject. aspect of an architectural space, being The bodily spatial aspect is described by the determined by the priority of the bodily, sensory system «barrier – stimulus». It implies the bodily component; the semiotic mechanism of the presence of the individual in the spatial object. intuition component accounts for self-reflection Bodily spatial description rests on biologically and existential experiencing of oneself in the inherited stereotypes determined by human world created by architectural design means. corporeity, a special formation that determines the The formation of the orientation and intuition horizon of human experience before any thinking components is predetermined by human corporeity and, thus, anonymity, synthetic spatial experience and congenital stereotypes relating to the creation without rational mediation or subordination and perception of form, whereas the recognition and to any function (Fig. 5). interpretation components are based on the The geometry is described by means of well- natural language and socially predetermined known geometric systems: shapes, their mental schemas. superposition, modification, transformation, The need to allow for the changing needs of the association with certain planes and surfaces and subjects/participants of the architectural design location, types of space and ways of their process leads to a change in the basic reference arrangement including linearity (unidirectionality) points of the architectural object‟s consumer as and nonlinearity (poly-variant type). This form of a representative of postindustrial society. Given this, description presents an object as something «ideal» the primary role shifts to the specificity of and abstract, existing independently from the interaction between the images that exist in the subject. The fundamental principles of geometric minds of various subjects/participants of the design description are represented by geometric archetypes. process with regard to the future architectural object. Archetype is a mental „residue” of numerous

55 Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2 ancestors‟ experiences, being quintessentially a form for the development of other artificial of inheriting the social, i.e. apriori comprehension language-like formations. and perception schemas that make the thinking The morphological structure of an architectural possible. The fundamental principles, including the object understood through the system of barriers and geometric ones, are present in the majority of stimuli is characterized by the introduction of the historical, religious and philosophical works individual with his corporeity into space, interpreting the issue of origin of the universe. where the body (not the geometry) determines The fundamental principles are manifestations of a series of possible interactions with the object. ideal Being in the form of living Being, which then This approach to constructing the morphological becomes consciousness. The further existence of the structure proceeds from the priority of the fundamental principles appears as ideal realities, needs of various subjects and provides broader or geometric archetypes in our case, replicated in opportunities for architectural form generation human creativity as a reflection of natural and without being limited to geometric shapes cosmic laws. The emergence of ideal realities and and their combinations, orthogonal systems of the development of the process of alienation spatial combinatorics and systems of individual of the «ideal» from the «real» happen due to an spaces and their relationships. operating system, natural language, which is a basis

From Architecture of Static Volumes to Variable Multilayered Environments The classical concepts of architectural objects as attitude to the world / environment / culture based architecture of buildings are becoming the past. on the plastic characteristics of the barrier Nevertheless, the contemporary architectural process plane / surface of the enclosure. in Russia is still demonstrating orientation to the The dialogic nature of architectural object mass consumer playing postmodernist games of manifests itself in two aspects: as a space of action citation and rephrasing or even direct reproduction or being, and as an identity or „face‟ of the object in of historical forms. Even the projects of renowned the environment / culture. This is determined architects such as N.Foster, D.Perro, J.Nouvel, by the duality of sensory perception of the D.Liebeskind, etc. cannot overcome the architectural object as a corporeal/tactile field with conservatism of the customer, potential consumer or fixed boundaries of action, relationships between authorities. It is therefore that for more than several spaces and some degree of isolation, and as a visual decades the original creative line of architectural field underlying the visual perception of these development in Russia has been moving from the boundaries. The visual field of the object determines building to the design project and then on to its perception as a system of barriers described by a theoretical concept. Experimental projects and a varying degree of visual and light permeability, theoretical concepts open up broader opportunities visual focusing or defocusing of the object‟s for realizing ideas in the rather conservative and contours as a space of action, and structurality. bureaucratic state. The nature of the barrier determines dynamics The distinctive feature of the latest architecture is in the relationship „individual-object-environment‟ processuality and dynamism in the unfolding of the that unfolds through: architectural object, realized in concepts of neutral 1) the fixing / demolition (and re-creation) of the and processual architecture of barriers, shells, and spatial level of orientation; veils. Architectural form generation is revealed 2) identification of the degree of inclusion or through the poetics of the barrier‟s contours as the isolation of the object‟s internal space in the art of creating “boundary-ness” by means of which spatial/temporal context of the environment the individual enters into relationships with the (simultaneity in the experiencing of the external Other: environment, culture, society. and the internal); An architectural object may be considered as a 3) determination of plastic attitude towards material entity experienced by the individual from the environment as a basis underlying the the position of his subjectivity, the material entity values and environmental qualities of the being a unity of various semiotic realities, object, through: a communication tool in social activity and a) traditional plastic techniques of treatment of the environmental processes. This structural approach impenetrable enveloping plane; exposes the essence of an architectural object as the b) disorganization, duplication, distortion in the result and condition of human activity and cognition mirror reflection of the enclosure surface; – both as a place of being / action / possible c) disappearance and illusoriness of the visually event based on the corporeal experiencing of transparent barrier; a defined / delineated space of action and as an d) stage-by-stage distancing of the multilevel barrier;

56 Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2

Fig. 6. Determination of plastic attitude towards the environment [Source: from author private archive]

Fig. 7. From architecture of static volumes to enclosed systems and variable multilayered environments [Source: from author private archive] e) unstable geometry of the contour dissolving the architectural object. It also determines heuristic form of the object in the environment and setting orientation of the typological system to a search for itself against the traditional orthogonal; and construction of structurally new architectural f) mobility, variability, transformability of the objects and generation of new derivative types. barrier. The greatest potential for the generation of The relationship between the architectural object derivatives is to be found in the development of and the culture and history shows itself also through enclosed systems and emergence of various the characteristics of the enclosure surface: derivatives of the basic types. The variability of an 1) traditionality, stability of routine forms of architectural object‟s structure and its adaptation to visually impenetrable barriers; various rapidly changing human needs is ensured by 2) the eventful character of unstable visual fields the use of multiply nested systems and different creating new orientation sets of objects with degrees of penetrability of the barriers (both material transparent, reflecting and contour-variable and optical) set on chaotic (arbitrary) spatial grids. enclosures; A nested system implies the presence of some 3) the paradoxicality of geometrical shifts in multilevel spaces permeating the building and enclosure planes. making it possible to achieve certain variability in This way of morphological description suggests vertical circulation. In a nested system, an idea of a developing typological system. Its we parametrically set the character and quantity of principal difference from the traditional nestings, the capacity and orientation of ultimate understanding of typology (in architecture) is its nested elements, and the construction of the barrier. non-reducibility to classification as an extensive way It also enables transition from orthogonal planning of organizing scientific knowledge. grids to chaotic ones, implying the introduction of The basis of the proposed architectural another variable – the degree of surface curvature typological method is constructing as an intensive and maximum allowable range of its variation and heuristic way of organizing scientific (from the standpoint of convenience of use and knowledge, i.e. creation of a synthetic cognitive maintenance). The character of the barrier may vary construct, a system of genetic and typical over a broad range (Fig. 7): relationships of both existing and potential 1) from a multilayered barrier to a nested system of architectural objects. These relationships underlie spatial volumes (both principal and buffer ones) the values (consumer characteristics) and and relationships between them; cultural significance of architectural objects. 2) in the degree of penetrability and optical The architectural typological method is based on characteristics of the material barrier; a concept of a developing typological system. 3) in the visual permeability and stability According to this concept, the typological system is / instability of the optical barrier; enabled to derive supplementary interrelated 4) the degree of inclusion of natural components as concepts from a common model to ensure the barriers (plants, water, etc.). elaboration of specific aspects in the formation of an

57 Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 2, Number 2

Fig. 8. Design experience. Student‟s master degree work: «Shell in the architecture of the futures» with project of multifunctional complex by O. Orzunova [supervisors – prof. Y. Yankovskaya, arch. V. Gromada] The processuality of an architectural object In modern-day Russia, traditional architectural emphasizes both its adaptability and its social essence activities are being reviewed, largely under the organizing a series of interactions between subjects influence of leading western architects who have and providing conditions for meeting their needs matured in market-driven consumer society, (including potential ones). The main pre-requisite to towards more varied interaction between architect and the creative process in postindustrial society is society. Architectural design is gradually essential orientation to the establishment of certain drifting away from a rigid administrative system, relationships between the psychological continuity with a growing understanding of its polylogue and cohesion of the architect‟s personality rather than character where each and every actor should have an to the rigid personal identity of author/Demiurge with opportunity to satisfy their needs without prejudicing an ever-recognizable master‟s idiom. The emphasis the needs of another. An important role in this on the priority of the perceiving subject/consumer belongs to the basic neutrality of architectural object, does not at all deny the presence of author's its openness to change, multiple use and polysemy of personality and does not impair the creative process; interpretations (Fig. 8). The conceptuality and rather, it reveals new, yet unknown facets through spatial-temporal variability of a modern-day building a mechanism of identification of the architect‟s (and environment) is a basis for architectural design personality with the Other (the consumer), which in the post-industrial context. allows one to come to know the Other and oneself through the Other.

Conclusion. Stagnation or Development? What is the way forward for Russian architecture? a way forward to the future, with distinctively original Are theoretical architectural concepts capable of Russian architecture. Development along this line is outlining a development strategy for the future, oriented to optimization, provision of methodological or do they just fix the store of experience and support to architectural practice in modern-day generalize historical experiments? The traditional consumer culture and emergence of professional theory of architecture in Russia looks to the past. marketing thinking and architectural management Dynamic concepts of architectural activity, which are adequate to the new economic context in progressive and open to development, may point to Russian architecture. References 1. Gabrichevsky A. Morfology of art. : AGRAF, 2002. 862 p. 2. Khan-Magomedov S. Soviet Avant-gard Architecture. Book 1, Book 2. Moscow: Stroyizdat, URSS. 1996, 2001. 712 p. 3. Lezhava I. Function and Strycture of form in architecture. Dr. Arch. thesis. Moscow: Moscow Architectural Institute, 1987. 250 p. 4. Merlo-Ponty М. Phenomenology of perception/ М. Merlo-Ponty. – P., 1962. 488 p. 5. Norberg-Schulz Cr. Existence, Space and Architecture. – New York, 1971. 120 p. 6. Rappaport A. To the understanding of architectural form. Dr. Art. thesis. Moscow: NIITAG, 2002. 141 p. 7. Yankovskaya, Y. Architectural object: Image and Morfology. Dr. Arch. thesis. Moscow: Moscow Architectural Institute (State Academy), 2006. 270 p.

INFORMATION ABOUT AUTHOR: Yuliya Yankovskaya, Dr. Arch., Professor, Head of Department of Architecture, Ural State Academy of Architecture and Arts; 23, K. Liebkneht Str., 620075, Ekaterinburg, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]

Kopsavilkums. Šis raksts ir veltīts jautājumiem par mūsdienu krievu arhitektūras teorijas attīstību. Raksts kopumā iekļauj vairākas, vērā ņemamas un būtiskas krievu arhitektūras skolas pārstāvju izvirzītas teorētiskās koncepcijas.

58