Юрий Погудин
Synthesis of Architectural Form. From Meaning to Concept

Life is a controversy waiting for synthesis

A. F. Losev

Dedicated to my family:

my wife Zoe and daughter Taya,

my mother Lyudmila, my father Alexander

and my sister Nina

Preface to the English edition

Dear readers, the translation of this book was performed by a friend of our family, Anna Kanunnikova. I am deeply grateful to her for the work.

The author hopes that the proposed direction will contribute to new architectural searches and discoveries.

September 14, 2025

Preface

Dear readers, I hope that this book will not only be read by you, but also will help you to create expressive architectural compositions.

Realities of the world that is changing before our eyes give rise to new requirements to competences of modern specialists. The active implementation of neural networks in the creative work of artists, designers, and architects brings linguistic and verbal thinking into focus, with its diverse connections with two-dimensional and three-dimensional forms. The connection between words and forms is the point that brings forth the results of the co–creation of human and artificial intelligence. It is in this vein that the author has been conducting research for more than 9 years, the results of which are presented in this book. It outlines the basic principles of communication between verbal/conceptual and figurative/spatial forms of thought. In our Archineo studio, students learn to create new architectural forms using a complex verbal and visual method in a series of certain exercises. A word and an image are two wings. A word is an impulse to create an image. The "clip consumption" of visual content should be replaced with the development of conceptual thinking in its connection with images, space and form. This is the only way a thinking creator can avoid becoming a mere appendage to neural networks, but enter into a co-creative resonance with them. Neural networks will enhance his creative potential, and the person will unlock their advanced capabilities.

The set of reflections in these essays provides a theoretical basis for the harmonious co-creation of human and artificial intelligence in the field of innovative architectural shape generation (form creation, morphogenesis). This book contains no blueprints for using neural networks, but there is something more: it highlights a number of issues on the use of verbal and philosophical methods of thinking in architectural morphogenesis, which is of practical importance both in independent creative search and in the generation of concepts in neural networks.

The author first conceived the idea of combining philosophy and architecture while studying at the St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the Faculty of Architecture. While studying the basics of spatial composition, the history of fine arts and architecture, I first came across the early works of the great Russian philosopher Aleksei Fyodorovich Losev. The term paper in philosophy titled "Architecture as a Subject of Philosophy" (2001) marked the beginning of essays on architectural composition. In the following five years, the preliminary general theoretical part, "The Dialectic of Architecture" (2006), was written. After a few years, thanks to the support of Viktor Petrovich Troitskiy, a senior researcher at the Losev House¹, I continued to develop a system of architectural propaedeutics, both theoretical and practical, based on the results of architectural design lessons that I have been giving for more than three years. The proposed methodological principles are applied by my students in their architectural and artistic projects (examples are presented in the final section). Some of them became winners in architectural categories of creative contests for children and youth.

The theoretical core of the book consists of three publications on methods of architectural morphogenesis, published in the St. Petersburg magazine Credo New in 2022-2023.

I deeply and cordially thank my mother Lyudmila, who supports my endeavors; my father Alexander – for helping me in forming my architectural and philosophical library; Uncle Vyacheslav – for my first drawing lessons when I was 2 years old; Grandfather Ivan – for collecting me after classes in art school; Uncle Sergei – for intellectual development; my wife Zoya – for constructive criticism and creative like-mindedness; Viktor Petrovich Troitsky – for wise mentoring and support in the development of the dialectical concept of architectural propaedeutics based on the principles of philosophy and aesthetics of Aleksei Fyodorovich Losev, Sergey Petrovich Ivanenkov – editor-in-chief of Credo New magazine – for help in publishing my articles on architecture; Nikolai Petrovich Pyatakhin, the artist and teacher of drawing in St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering – for kindness and consistency in the profound mastering of live freehand drawing; Aleksei Dudin, the rector of the Church of the Holy Great Prince Vladimir, Equal of the Apostles in Kommunar Town of the Gatchinsky District, the Leningrad Region, and priest Constantine Slepinin – for prayer support; all the teachers who taught me in Saint Petersburg Gymnasium School No. 114, Saint Petersburg Georgy Sviridov Art School No. 1, Saint Petersburg Interregional Centre (College) of the Ministry of Labour of Russia at the Design faculty, St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the architectural faculty; my students – for the fruitful study and excellent works.

I would be grateful for the feedback and comments that can be sent by email:

yuripogudin@archineo.ru

Have a co-creative reading! Yuri Pogudin,

July 24, 2023

Introduction

One day, the author wrote such a comment to a post about an architectural biennale²: "We can consider the history of modern architecture as a struggle against the peripter. First, the pediment was cut off, and we got a flat roof. The abolition of symmetry gave a free plan and dynamics. The separation from the base gave the "house on pillars". Then we see two parallel processes: identification (walls, wall and roof, etc.) in curvilinear structures and division (walls, wall and roof, etc.) into free elements. The third stage is pixelation: architecture turns into a screen, a mirror, and performance. And electronic baroque. The path of form: from the Egyptian Pyramid to virtual reality."

This somewhat caricatured description reveals categoriality as the basis of architecture: such things as roofs and walls and such qualities as symmetry and transparency are substantive categories for architecture in the same way, as the concepts of finite and infinite, subjective and objective, etc. are for philosophy. Just as a philosopher performs intellectual actions of analysis and synthesis with abstract concepts, so an architect performs visual and material actions with volumetric and spatial forms and their qualities. When Zaha Hadid identified the floor and the wall in the interior through curvilinear plasticity at the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, it was a new action, it was a new categorial step.

Therefore, architecture can be called a full-fledged philosophy of form, or, if it is more familiar, "philosophy in stone," although it is possible that after a while, we will see the architecture that structures space not with matter, but with force fields. Philosophy, in turn, is the architecture of concepts, the world view of the world creation. The thought of a philosopher connects words–bricks, the thought of an architect – forms, which are concepts and images at the same time.

The thirst for form creation is inherent in people in general, just as the thirst for new music is inherent in composers. The concept of form is integral, and history is the development of forms. The development of meanings stands behind the development of forms. How exactly does a particular form relate to the meaning? What meaning and in what manner does it convey? Precisely these forms flourish in every epoch. And looking at the forms of different epochs and peoples, we can feel for ourselves how different the ideas behind them are. The approach of art experts to appreciate the art of all countries and peoples in the same manner does not devalue the inherent desire of people to find the meaning of life associated with a single Truth. The choice of a world view or religion becomes a choice of an external form, environment, and lifestyle. Aleksei Losev would use here the concept of "myth" – as a historical unity of views, lifestyle of people and the entire created environment.

In the search for new volumetric and spatial compositions, architecture turns to nature and technology, science and art, music and painting, and, of course, philosophy. The achievements of philosophy do not have a generally binding mathematical compulsion, and the choice of philosophical teaching consonant with oneself may in many ways have the character of an aesthetic preference. Thus, the doctrine of the synthesis of opposites in dialectical philosophies seems to the author more beautiful (and therefore more logical) than fixing binary oppositions without resolving their opposition. The apotheosis of this approach was the aphorism of fr. Pavel Florensky: "Rublev's Trinity exists; therefore God exists." In moments of doubt about religious faith, one can consider figure skating: how can such beauty come from nowhere and go nowhere? And Aleksei Losev called his philosophy a "ballet of categories." Logic and beauty, meaning and form are mysteriously interconnected.

Therefore, in the search for architectural beauty and expressiveness, it is logical to turn to philosophy and aesthetics as a storehouse of thought, its constructions, its structurality and movement. The deepest source of this kind is the philosophy of Aleksei Fyodorovich Losev, which has melted down into a new synthesis, a new fusion of ancient, medieval, New European German and Russian Christian philosophy.

The ideas and principles of A. Losev's philosophy can become living seeds for new branches of modern architectural propaedeutics. The author of this book, to the best of his ability, has developed the semantic unity of some of these principles with the concepts of architectural propaedeutics. This work resulted in essays on applied architectural aesthetics – a pedagogical system of dialectical architectural form generation for volumetric and spatial compositions.

A textbook on architectural modeling from the Ural State Academy of Architecture and Art , in our opinion, correctly describes the current situation in architecture: "Somehow, the opinion has prevailed that the impending decline of architecture is manifested only in the "lacking skill" of architects. Increasing this skill in all possible ways is seen as a counteraction to this process. It may go as far as recognition and idealization of the results of the work of a limited group of specialists.

Considering the example of the most important historical changes in architecture, one can see that they were associated not with the loss of craftsmanship, but with the "devaluation of stylistic forms." In this way, the Renaissance revalued the Gothic, the 19th century – the classics, the beginning of our [20 – Yu. P.] century – eclecticism, and then Art Nouveau. Rather, the loss of craftsmanship itself was a consequence of the devaluation of the architectural form. It turns out that the "sacred goal", for which mastery strives, has disappeared.

The devaluation is most clearly expressed in the "feeling of sham randomness of architectural forms.” Sham randomness can in no way convince of its comprehensive justification and realism. Architectural form, therefore, is not just geometry, mass, space, substance, but "an alloy of material with symbolic content, outlined by morphological contours of the form." The form "sweeps along the movements of both our body and our spirit." The truthfulness and organicity of the form are rooted in our consciousness. Spirit and material must be fused together by the meaning. For example, in some objects, the architectural form and material literally coincide, but all this engineering precision does not express any meaning and does not entail any emotions.

When we see in a form only a historical style, only a technical or functional calculation, only the conventionality of language or the irony of the author, we will sooner or later decipher its meaning. However, this meaning is addressed to something different than this form as such. Instead of "referring the viewer to inexhaustible semantic contexts, the form loses its vitality, remaining a conventional sign." <…>

"The fate of the entire architectural culture depends on whether we manage to find a way of thinking that complements scientific analysis and counterposes the diversity of subjective artistic creation to synthesis." [70].

An expressive architectural form, in its inherent meanings, outgrows itself, becoming an intentional existential symbol. Peter Zumthor put it this way: "I did my first two buildings.… It was terrible. I could hear the architectural discussion of the time in my buildings. This was the last time that this should happen to me.... So what is this being myself? It is interesting that in these buildings, which gave me this headache, heart ache, there were things I liked, such as things that did not come from a magazine or from a discussion that I can talk about with somebody. Rather, this is me!" [Quoted after: 58].

The history goes on, and people continue to create. They continue to create architecture as well. New styles replace old ones. Each major style is characterized by a special type of composition. Let's look at the main ones.

Types of Architectural Composition

The development of fine art in general, and the formation of architectural propaedeutics in particular, suggest that there are fundamentally different compositional systems behind the external features and attributes of each of the major styles. In this sense, we can talk about types of composition, each of which has its own internal logic, its own specific structure. At the same time, the individual compositional principles of each of these systems may be included in the arrangement of a different type. But this does not reduce the importance of the originality and uniqueness of a separate compositional system as an internally integrated type that cannot be completely derived from another. We can compare the formation of such a typology with the formulation of the conceptual "DNA" of various architectural styles – with the remark that the "codes" do not encode, but express their specifics.

Next, we will consider in general and essential terms the main historically established types of compositional systems and outline a passage to a new dialectical type developed by the author on the basis of philosophy and aesthetics of Aleksei Fyodorovich Losev.

• Canonical (all "big" styles up to and including Art Nouveau)

• Functional and constructive (Bauhaus, constructivism in the USSR)

• Rationalistic (N. Ladovsky)

• Variative and combinatorial (N. Rochegova, E. Barchugova)

• Intuitive picturesque (K. Malevich, Z. Hadid)

• Bionic

• Dialectical (based on the philosophy of A. Losev)

The first such large type is the canonical composition of classical styles, starting with the ancient Egyptian and ending with the Art Nouveau style. What do such different works as an Egyptian temple and an Art Nouveau mansion have in common?

This is the facade approach to the overall composition of the building, the subtlety of proportional relations, the filigree elaboration of details, the measure, the predominance of symmetry and clear geometric shapes. Most of the classical styles, such as the Greek and Roman architecture of Antiquity, Renaissance, Classicism and Baroque, are based on the order system of composition, which by its nature is a beautiful "garment" of the building. For many people, it has aesthetic fullness and special warmth of forms.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, a functional and constructive type of composition appeared. The general composition of the building, the relative location and the ratio of its parts began to be determined by function and/or structure as priorities. The architecture shed the abundant classical decor as autumn leaves and showed its laconic and strict frame. Regular geometric shapes still prevail, but they are more often connected to each other asymmetrically. The facade is being replaced by working with volume, searching for an asymmetrically balanced expressiveness in the integral structure of the building.

The rationalism of N. Ladovsky stands out against the background of the functional constructivist mainstream of the first half of the twentieth century. This rationalism eventually became the basis of the Russian architectural propaedeutics developed by his students and followers. Ladovsky defined the form guided by two opposite sides: by objective fundamental parameters such as magnitude, mass, tension, etc.; and by the subjective characteristics of the psychophysiological understanding of space by a man. Compositional searches of his students are distinguished by the boldness of their solutions achieving the expressive intensity of forms, but at the same time rationalized by the thought of the comfort of human perception of the city space. Let's call this compositional type rationalistic, after this doctrine.

In modern Russian architectural propaedeutics, lecturers of the Moscow Architectural Institute N. Rochegova and E. Barchugova developed a variable and combinatorial type of composition, which became possible due to the use of computer modeling. The general compositional message is the generation of many different form variants from a few initial "basic" elements – using replication, scaling, displacement, and rotation operations. As a part of such searching, the principles of modernist architecture can still be used to harmonize the composition.

The intuitive picturesque type of architectural composition, which originated in K. Malevich's suprematism, became a kind of "response" to the form rigidly determined by its function and/or structure. The composition with its internal axes is built as a system of spontaneous flows of forms, harmonized by a general equilibrium and a proportional ratio of large masses. The brightest modern representative of this type is Zaha Hadid. Her office has become a center for generating a new style – parametricism. It combines intuitive picturesque artistry with parametric computer modeling of a building as a system, taking into account a variety of specific structural, climatic and other factors.

Let's highlight the bionic type of composition. It is characterized by imitative, stylizing, or literal copying of natural principles and/or forms, including the entire range of organisms from protozoa to humans. Modern architectural bionics is often particularly characterized by its seamless nature, as opposed to the centuries-old established composition, which was in use up to the second half of the 20th century, and, as a rule, included orthogonally connected parts of the building that were articulated and clearly stood out as part of the whole.

So, the composition of a building can be created based on a system of certain artistic principles (such as order), on a function and/or structure, on intuitive artistic vision, on a variable field using the combinatorics of a few initial elements, on the basic properties of spatial form and the peculiarities of their perception (N. Ladovsky). Next, we will reveal another compositional type of form generation – dialectical, which derives compositions from the intrinsic geometric logic of the form in harmony with the purpose of the building.

The school of rationalism of N. Ladovsky – from architectural point of view – and the dialectical aesthetics of A. Losev – from philosophical point of view – play a crucial part in the creation of such compositional system. Let's give a brief overview of both systems.

On the concept of N. A. Ladovsky

The significance of Nikolai Ladovsky's system in architectural pedagogy still requires reflection and coming out of the shadow of other prominent creators of the Soviet avant-garde. It can be said with complete certainty that Ladovsky became the founder of Russian architectural propaedeutics, developed and framed into a system by his students and followers.

No matter how beautiful and harmonious the architectural classic works were and still are, the development of society, science, technology, and art at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries led to a paradigm shift. The static beauty of a classic building, complete in its symmetry, has been replaced by a building whose form is derived from the concepts of movement, curved space, and the discrepancy between the outer shell and internal premises.

Ladovsky turned to the most fundamental concepts of architecture as a spatial art that cannot be reduced to civil engineering. Space, its finiteness and infinity, the clarity of its perception by people, the calmness and tension of the form, its dynamics reflecting modern history – these are the points and nodes around which the new architectural propaedeutics was formed, which is still relevant today. The system of rationalism is most fully and in great detail revealed in the works of S.O. Khan–Magomedov³.

The same 20s and 30s of the last century saw the birth of fruitful and integral concepts: the one by Nikolai Ladovsky in architecture and pedagogy, and the other by Aleksei Losev in aesthetics and philosophy. Architectural propaedeutics is dynamic and open to new syntheses with philosophical thought. Our task is to show how abstract thought can nourish concrete aesthetics, dialectical philosophy can become a generator of principles for architectural pedagogy, and, perhaps more importantly, to produce an emerging branch of the new architectural aesthetics based not on manifesto negations of past experience, but on the powerful message of the all-unity of Vladimir Solovyov and the supreme synthesis of Aleksei Losev.

Principles of dialectical philosophy of A. F. Losev

Aleksei Losev's philosophy amazes with a combination of depth of thought, simplicity and complexity, consistency and a minimum of special terms, integrity and completeness, boldness and academicism. In a brief digression, it is impossible to summarize and reveal the philosopher's dialectical system in any way completely. Therefore, I will focus on those of its principles that have particularly influenced the development of the proposed dialectic of architectural morphogenesis.

Let's highlight three such principles:

• Reconciliation of opposites in synthesis

• Expression of the whole in its parts

• Presentation of meaning in form

The principle of synthesis is one of Losev's key methodological guidelines, a kind of intrinsic logical leitmotif. Losev's entire philosophy and aesthetics can be called a synthetic one that builds an objective picture of existence as the highest synthesis. This approach opposes formal logic and binary thinking, which fix any semantic oppositions and do not seek their reconciliation in synthesis. So, the concept of "contrast" in the generally accepted compositional propaedeutics for designers and architects is binary, it means a juxtaposition of any parts or qualities of a form. In this point of view, integrity is revealed as a dyad, in which there is no unification of thesis and antithesis.

Let's look at it in details on the example of the specific geometric science. Any category of geometry, starting from a point, is both an abstract mathematical concept, and a verbally logical, and illustratively visual one. If the visual image of an octahedron is a certain combination of images of a square and a circle, then this is simultaneously beautiful in both logical and visual respects. If the dialectical construction shows the movement of categories and beauty in their semantic formation, then both visual and material geometry will be a cast, reflection and expression of this movement and this beauty. The geometric concept becomes the point of intersection of logic and aesthetics.

Thus, a single semantic root is found that unites philosophical thought and architectural and aesthetic pursuit.

Aleksei Losev explained his idea of synthesis using examples from various fields of science – geometry, chemistry, astronomy. Synthesis is such a unity of opposites when they form a new quality without losing itself. In this place, Hegel used such words as "sublation" and "negation of negation." The antithesis negates the thesis, and synthesis negates the antithesis. But Losev since his youth was inspired for creation – the highest synthesis.

So, following Losev, we will think of synthesis not as the "negation of negation," but as creation (1), as the creation of a new (2), as the creation of a fundamentally new (3). A fundamentally new thing is born from the combination of the opposites – as different as possible, or at least from different, dissimilar, non-identical. After all, why synthesize the identical, if it is the same anyway?

The second of the principles under consideration was discovered already in the ancient philosophy. The whole is an organism in which it is impossible to replace one part with another without damage, because all parts bear the stamp of their integrity. The whole connects the parts, and each part reveals the whole, highlights its important facet.

In modern architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright came closest to this understanding: "In the realm of organic architecture human imagination must render the harsh language of structure into becomingly humane expressions of form instead of devising inanimate facades or rattling the bones of construction. Poetry of form is as necessary to great architecture as foliage is to the tree, blossoms to the plant, or flesh to the body" [46, 177]. "The word organic in architecture does not mean belonging to the animal or plant world," Wright wrote. The word "organic", according to him, means that the whole is to the part as the part is to the whole [46, 181].

An organism is the opposite of a mechanism in which the scheme prevails over the "flesh" of the parts. The architectural composition, in turn, can be organic, or combinatorially mechanistic. An organic composition is born as a sculptural integrity, a sculpture that unfolds from its grain – an idea, and not as a result of spontaneous technical manipulations that can give the impression of being spectacular.

The third principle speaks about the disclosure of the inner in the outer, about the manifestation, germination of a semantic idea into a certain form, including a material one. The form expresses the meaning, but does not encode or encrypt it. Losev's aesthetic system can be called the aesthetics of expression. In this phenomenon of the greater in the lesser, the ideal in the material, or, in Losev's synonymous terminology, the eidetic in the meonal, symbols play a key role. Since the architectural form reveals meanings in three–dimensional shells–sculptures, it is also symbolic. A symbol is a meeting point of two realities – the semantic source and expressive elements. Their unity is revealed in the diverse figurative images of works of art and other human activities.

We will discuss the expressive semantic energy in architectural morphogenesis in a separate chapter below.

The author does not pretend to be exhaustive in covering the meaning-generating potentials of Losev's philosophy for the tasks of architectural composition, and considers all the proposed work to be a full-fledged beginning that can open up into something more, and hopes that the given vector will resonate with architects, educators and thinkers who develop the philosophy of creativity for applied purposes.

The Three Forces That Create an Art Object

A work of art is born at the intersection of three forces: this is a visual, sensory and logical principle. The role of sensory and visual principles is well known. The effect of the verbal and logical, ideal and semantic component is less obvious. Thus, A. G. Rappaport notes: "Perhaps it is precisely the lack of experience in the logical study of professional thinking that has led to the fact that it has become customary that verbal forms of thought are underestimated and thinking in images is set in opposition to them" [67]. Next, we will try to substantiate the importance of the word and conceptual logic in architectural form generation – it is no less than the importance of three–dimensional images as such and materials / structures.

The Basis of the Method Is a Dialectical Triad, a Synthesis

When we think of modern architecture, we are in two minds: from the edge that it can do anything (conquer gravity and explore other planets) to the edge that it is a thing of the past, when one can hear that "there is no longer a recognized formal concept", but there is a "chimerical consciousness", and "it cannot create a form, it does not believe in it" [68]. We can say that the destiny (as the path, not the fate) of architecture is the destiny of form. Architecture exists as long as there is a form and there is a will to create a form, and architecture degenerates into something else (for example, a mirror or a screen) when the concept of the form is devalued, ceases to be a worthy task, and is replaced by a game or imitation.

Two forces inspired the author to propose a discussion to dear readers – the love of architecture and the philosophy of Aleksei Fyodorovich Losev. The thoughts outlined here run the risk, in the words of Grigory Revzin, of remaining marginal "both in relation to architectural studies, which are not engaged in philosophy, and in relation to philosophy, which is not interested in architectural studies [italics mine Yu.P.]" [29, 7].

But there is a third area for which the thoughts of this book were honed – pedagogy: pre-university training of students – future designers and architects, and teaching architectural composition (propaedeutics) to first-year students of architectural design colleges and universities. The ultimate goal of this work is of an applied nature: it is intended to introduce form-generating architectural composition into the practice of teaching creative art.

N. F. Metlenkov draws attention to the fact that "creativity as a philosophical and psychological concept has not found a place in logic. Therefore, the theory of teaching creativity has not been worked out either. Project creativity is still taught in artisanal manner, only in the process of joint project activity of the teacher and the student" [35, 427]. The material of the proposed essays seeks to fill this gap and form a theoretical core for the application of the constructive dialectical method in architectural propaedeutics and at the design stage aimed at the compositional and artistic solution of the image of the future building.

The practical results of applying our method – selected works of the author and his students – are experimental in a positive sense of the word. According to A.P. Kudryavtsev, "it is necessary to look for all the latest methodological tools; there is no other way to new methodological tools except the path of experimentation; without experimentation, one cannot be in pedagogy today, that's why one must experiment, and experiment very actively, in all areas of architectural education" [36, 369].

In the context of the polemic of "formalists" and "functionalistic constructivists", the author's thoughts are more formal in nature and belong to the field of artistic form generation. Formalism as a phenomenon is rehabilitated in the works of S. O. Khan–Magomedov [25] and the ideas of Zaha Hadid's colleague Patrick Schumacher [48]. Formalism is harmful if it is the only approach, but it is fruitful to develop it as a significant part of an integrated design method..

Before proceeding to the main thoughts, let us clarify that the established connection between philosophical concepts and architectural categories belong mainly to categorical dialectics – one of the foundations of A. F. Losev's thinking. A. F.  Losev's philosophy itself is broader, and represents a complex synthesis of dialectics, phenomenology, and other important structural and logical elements. It is his thoughts and works that the author refers to as the most familiar to him.

Revealing the understanding of the cosmos and space among the Greek philosophers, Aleksei Fyodorovich Losev wrote about its heterogeneity⁴, and on the one hand, contrasted it with "Newton's space"⁵, on the other – connected it with "Einstein's space". For modern physics, the vacuum turned out to be not an absolute void, but a medium with a generative force [71]. According to V. V. Rozanov, space contains the full potential of various forms: "… in every place of space there is a form of each given object; and, moving, it does not move its form with it <…>, but, having left it and thereby having made it potential again, it enters into a new form, identical to the previous one in appearance, but located in a different place in space – exactly in the place where it moved to. Thus, the apparent movement of a form is essentially a continuous concealment and detection of visible spatial forms along the path of a moving substance – concealment and detection accompanying the exit and entry of this substance from one form into another; so that the substance moves, but the forms remain motionless" [17, 162-163]. Space is the actual and potential repository of the whole infinity of all possible forms. With this understanding, the architect, creating a new form, actualizes the potency already contained in the space. It is important here to dwell on the idea that this infinity includes both harmonious and disharmonious forms. Similarly, musical instruments, such as the piano keyboard, contain the full potential of sounds, both euphonious and cacophonous.

New experiences in architectural morphogenesis are numerous, radical, and expanded to include the aesthetics of the ugly. The "lack of freedom" of a new level – dependence on technology – is one of the main reasons for the triumph of the ugly in twentieth-century art"⁶ (Bychkov V. V.). Reflecting on the role of computer modeling in creative searches, Alexander Ryabushin warned: "Today, "the computer allows you to try everything without building at all"… However, there are objective reasons for concern: each tool generates specific dependencies (and the more sophisticated it is, the stronger it is), and the identical programs from Silicon Valley can lead to an excessive convergence of the things that, by their very nature, should have originality, even in our [architectural – Yu.P.] field. The universality of streamlined whale-like outlines, suspiciously reminiscent of newfangled sports sneakers in their sleekness, is already beginning to confuse [33, 52]. If in the case of the resemblance to sneakers we can talk about an obsessive trend in the morphogenesis, then in the case of the aesthetics of forms resembling insects or internal organs⁷, it's time to recall the "Pandora's box". As I. A. Dobritsyna notes, "the non-linear logic of a computer has made it possible to build models of complex objects.… Gilles Deleuze turned out to be the closest of all other philosophers to non-linear science.… It is known that in his last works he already expressed concern about experiences of non-linear thinking, trying to propose ways out of the fascinating, but unusual and demonically uncomfortable world of non-linearity [italics mine Yu.P.]" [39, 9].

The most important antidotes to such inhumane aesthetics are the memory of the emotional and spiritual well-being of people in the designed and created new environment; the preservation of the art of live creative freehand drawing; the maintenance of classical ideals of beauty, proportion, harmony, integrity, which does not imply the impossibility of developing new architectural forms.

Before outlining an alternative aesthetic in its comparison with parametric and blob aesthetics, let's turn to the basic principles of architecture.

We encounter architecture as an art that has a direct and most complete communication with space. "Space, not stone, is the material of architecture," Nikolai Ladovsky formulated for centuries [25, 65-67]. Architecture, of course, acts as a repository for man and his activities [2, 122-123]. At the same time, while forming the space, architecture is revealed externally, and therefore it is an eidetic form, which means it has its own figurative face, image, and, in this sense, it is connected with a sculptural form, as N. Ladovsky convincingly argued: "Although space appears in all forms of art, only architecture makes it possible to read the space correctly. Structure is included in architecture insofar as it defines the concept of space. The basic principle of the designer is to invest a minimum of material and get maximum results. It has nothing to do with art and can only accidentally satisfy the requirements of architecture. Since architecture deals with space, and sculpture deals with form, it is best to design the building as a sculpture from the outside and as architecture from the inside, the thickness of the walls does not matter. With this approach to design, the exterior does not always express the internal content [italics mine Yu.P.]" [25, 67].

A. F. Losev often uses the word "statueness" as a synonym for sculptural art. It sends us back us to the entire ancient Greek statues with their reference qualities of fine proportions, measure, unexalted expression, clarity, balance and harmonious movement. The same features are characteristic of ancient Greek philosophy and architecture. Losev's thought inherited these qualities of measure, structure, integrity, and mobility from the ancient cosmos. It is these qualities that reveal the architectural form as beautiful and noble.

It can be said that sculpture is an organically inherent quality of many architectural works in their centuries-long development, from the Egyptian pyramids to the modernism of K. Melnikov and A. Aalto. The turn of the 20–21 centuries, marked by the rapid development of computer modeling, was the beginning of a fundamentally new architectural aesthetic.

The followers of modern Western architectural thought are characterized by pedaling the binary scheme of their new look and classical and modernist architectural paradigms, which are now combined into one type. Thus, the philosopher and mathematician of the early 20th century Alfred North Whitehead argued that "Process, not substance, is the fundamental characteristic of reality" [45, 88]. In the semantic field of Aleksei Fyodorovich Losev, such a "clash" of opposites is perceived as a commitment to formal logic that shall be overcome on the path of dialectical logic: One, Being, Becoming… There is no opposition of "what" and "how", but rather their transition into synthesis (Becoming and Having Become). This is a synthesizing thought, not an opposing one; a thought that has the intuition of unitotality as its inner message (Vl. Solovyov) and the higher synthesis of happiness and knowledge (A. Losev).

The concepts of symbiosis and alliance are similar in meaning to the category of synthesis in modern theoretical thought. So, Jeffrey Kipnis outlines a synthetic direction: "Folding" is a strategy for creating "smooth mixtures", according to which something fundamentally new can be created from two or more qualitatively different types of structural organization. For example, a homogeneous modernist "grid" can enter into a symbiotic connection with a hierarchically ordered structure" [41, 602-603].

A radically contrasting position was taken by Patrik Schumacher in the Parametricist Manifesto [69], who formulates opposition to modernism as taboo: "Avoid rigid geometric primitives like squares, triangles and circles, avoid simple repetition of elements, avoid juxtaposition of unrelated elements or systems… We might think of liquids in motion, structured by radiating waves, laminal flows, and spiraling eddies… There are no platonic, discrete figures or zones with sharp outlines" [69].

The modernist type of forms, and with it the entire ancient type of form perception, is declared obsolete, discrete, and rigidly regular. Turning to Losev's thought, we see that the ancient understanding is much deeper than such a parametric reduction of Antiquity to a single Euclidean type. A. F. Losev expressed the idea of the heterogeneity of space most fully in his work "The Ancient Cosmos and Modern Science": "Space has varying degrees of tension and is completely heterogeneous. Only metaphysical prejudices and blind dogma could make us believe for centuries that space had an absolute character. Space is just as compressible and expandable as a physical thing in a commonly understood space. Here, it is not the qualities of absolute space that are heterogeneous, but space itself is devoid of absoluteness and is relative everywhere, i.e., it depends on various other conditions" [1, 226].

If in understanding the heterogeneity of space it is possible to find a common point between the ancient cosmos and parametericism, then the concept of "seamless" takes us away from "sculptural" and "figurative" in the opposite direction from the classical understanding. This is "a new type of form that has absorbed all the dynamics of its own generation, tending to a kind of "formlessness", to absolute freedom" [41, 601]. The juxtaposition of such concepts as architectural form and "formlessness" sounds paradoxical. Not without irony, A. F. Losev wrote: "A pile of sand, they say, is shapeless. But, of course, this formlessness is only relative here, that is, we are talking about it only when comparing this pile with other objects. In the absolute sense of the word, a pile of sand also has its own distinct shape, namely the shape of a pile. The clouds in the sky are also shapeless. And again, this should be understood only relatively" [7, 68]. Protozoa is the bionic form that is most closely related to "seamless" searches. And the icons for gadgets also paradoxically bring us back to an earlier moment of the birth of writing, when letters were just beginning to form as hieroglyphic signs.

Let's summarize our comparison in a table of key concepts:

P. Schumacher speaks of a "seamless fluidity akin to natural systems." There is a fundamental difference in how an architectural form correlates with nature. If parametricism and bionics in many of their searches follow the path of maximum similarity and, in fact, literal copying and non–symbolic reproduction of biological forms in their external fluidity and curvilinear complexity, and sometimes a certain kind of invertebrate forms, then Antiquity is characterized by a symbolic vision. The symbol does not necessarily strictly resemble the prototype, the symbol may be different, but at the same time represent the prototype. A symbol is a manifestation of one, which is hierarchically greater, in the other, hierarchically smaller. Thus, the Greek peripter has no literal counterpart in nature, and at the same time it represents an ordered cosmos. It symbolically depicts the universe, outwardly having a philosophically different form.

Moving away from the binary scheme of "primitive classical and modernist form" – "flowing seamless intricate complex parametric form", in the following discussion we will outline an exit to the aesthetics of a dialectically organized form combining classically clear forms and modern complex geometry, without "entanglement", which is uncomfortable for a person's psychological sense of self⁸, and depressing similarities with certain types of biological forms (such as forms of insects, invertebrates, internal organs, arteries, etc.)

The symbol expresses, reveals the prototype. In the word "revealing", one can feel the shape of a ray: it is a ray of light passing through other medium. In "folding", one can see a bend. A "fold" is a logical figure that brings a certain variety to a conditional uniformity. Discrete elements are absorbed by it, merged into continuity. "The "fold" does not tolerate gaps" [41, 600].

Here we can recall the antinomies of Father Pavel Florensky – examples of precisely thought gaps. The first such gap is the ontological difference between the Creator and creature in theism. In this context, the concepts of "seamless" and "fluid", which do not tolerate discontinuities, correlate with pantheism, for which being is both the cosmos and the absolute, which are consubstantially generating each other. The symbol is present, when there is an ontological abyss between the Creator and created world with a completely different nature.

Meaning can be expressed in words, sounds, forms, etc. The leading meaningful role in A. F. Losev's philosophy is given to the word. It originates in the Gospel of John and patristic thought. St. Gregory of Nyssa emphasized that man is a verbal being⁹. Hence, let's formulate the fundamental principle of the updated architectural propaedeutics: The word has a leading role, and it has generative power. Since any architectural form is not only perceived by the senses, but also described in words and concepts, it is inextricably linked with them in our perception. While reflecting over architectural forms, the word can come not only afterwards as an architectural and art criticism discourse, and not only be "parallel" to the design process, but also be the primary source of architectural creativity. The author has pedagogical experience in applying this approach that has shown good results in revealing the creative architectural imagination of schoolchildren and students. And here we fundamentally disagree with the idea of the "secondariness" of the word for the architectural development of children, expressed by D.L. Melodinsky: "Decisive importance should be given to the development of spatial imagination and thinking. This form of thinking, different from the abstract one, is capable of conjuring up images in the mind, manipulating them without words [italics mine Yu.P.], and seeing a special language in the spatial characteristics of the objective world of forms that carries the meanings contained in them" [42, 220]. We see the danger of modern visual culture, which today's children grow up on, precisely in its "wordlessness, unverbal character", its desire to be autonomous from verbal thinking and "manipulate images without words."

A. F. Losev's philosophy reveals a dialectical type of thought, different from formal logic and binary schematism. The key concepts in our discussion are the dialectical triad and synthesis. In its most simplified form, the dialectical triad manifests itself as a thesis, antithesis and synthesis [7, 116]. Thesis and antithesis are any two opposite concepts, their opposition is overcome in synthesis. Dialectics requires that "two opposites, despite their substantial specificity and independence, merge in a synthesis, where it is no longer possible to distinguish these two opposites. The synthesis represents a completely new and original quality, but it nevertheless, remains a condition for the possibility of emergence of the two original opposites from it" [9, 56]. Synthesis becomes such a union of two opposite principles, in which they do not only lose themselves, but also acquire a new quality, unknown to them before synthesis: "the whole is such that, although it consists of parts, it does not reduce to these parts at all, but there is some new quality, thanks to which separate, mutually isolated things turn into just certain parts of just the certain whole. In other words, obtaining a new quality from two other qualities that have nothing in common is simply the result of the dialectical unity of opposites" [7, 331].

A. F. Losev's concept of the whole as a synthesis of its parts is close to Father Pavel Florensky's concept of the form: "The concept of the whole, "which is prior to its parts," and which, therefore, determines the composition of its elements. And this is the form" [15, 18]. Summarizing, we can say that the whole is a singularity presented as a synthesis of its parts and properties, irreducible to their sum, and manifested in a form (eidetic image). In the Losev semantic field, "self-identical difference", "coordinated separateness", and "single separable integrity" are similar concepts. In composition, it is necessary to give the separateness of forms, and to give their unity, and to coordinate their separateness and their unity as one whole.

It is possible to apply the dialectical triad to the construction of geometric forms, and to consider forms and their parts and qualities within an architectural composition as theses, antitheses and syntheses. A similar concept is the term "contrast", well-known in architectural propaedeutics. Contrast is the juxtaposition of thesis and antithesis, without combining them in synthesis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

In relation to the architectural field, the concept of synthesis undergoes, in A. F. Losev's terms, a meonal, other-worldly change. In the material world, in which architecture is created and lives, synthesis may not be given in full force, as in the purely conceptual field, but partly as a combination of opposites, when parts of forms and their properties are combined in a new form. In this respect, synthesis acts as an "in-between" between opposites, but nevertheless its unifying role does not lose its significance.

The formation of synthesis is a spasmodic movement – spasmodic because otherwise it is impossible to overcome the opposite, heterogeneous principles. In this way, it is fundamentally different from meter and rhythm, as movements that are homogeneous and quantitative, essentially uniform. As an example of homogeneous creativity, I recall the words of the hero from Robert Sheckley's fantasy story: "I knew for years that some other development was possible, starting from the square. I looked at it for a very long time. Its maddening sameness baffled and intrigued me. Equal sides, equal angles. For a while I experimented with varying the angles. The primal parallelogram was mine, but I do not consider it any great accomplishment. I studied the square. Regularity is pleasing, but not to excess. How to vary that mind-shattering sameness, yet still preserve a recognizable periodicity? Then it came to me one day! All I had to do, I saw in a sudden flash of insight, was to vary the lengths of two parallel sides in relationship to the other two sides. So simple, and yet so very difficult! Trembling, I tried it. When it worked, I confess, I went into a state of mania. For days and weeks I constructed rectangles, of all sizes and shapes, regular yet varied. I was a veritable cornucopia of rectangles!… To date, there are slightly more than seventy billion rectangular structures in the galaxy. Each one of them derives from my primal rectangle" [63, 196–197].

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «Литрес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на Литрес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Примечания

1

State Budget-Funded Cultural Institution of Moscow "The Losev House – Scientific Library and Memorial Museum"

Вернуться

2

Dubai Expo 2021.

Вернуться

3

See the works of S. O. Khan–Magomedov: "Architecture of the Soviet Avant-Garde", Book 1 [23]; volume "Rationalism" from the trilogy devoted to the main trends of the Soviet architectural and artistic avant–garde [25].

Вернуться

4

About the heterogeneity of the world's space: "Coordinated separation in space will obviously require 1. the heterogeneity of space itself and 2. a certain system of these heterogeneous spaces. So, the synthesis of infinity and finiteness of world space is the figurativeness of this space." [3, 253]

Вернуться

5

"Newton's mechanics is based on the hypothesis of homogeneous and infinite space. The world has no boundaries, i.e. it has no form. For me, this means that it is formless. The world is absolutely homogeneous space. For me, this means that he is absolutely flat, inexpressive, and unpresentable. Such a world exudes incredible boredom." [3, 67]

Вернуться

6

"In classical art (from Antiquity to the 20th century), we can generally trace the dialectic of the beautiful and the ugly, the creation of harmony based on the dynamic unity of dissonances, and only from the second part of the 19th century and especially in the 20th century, from the avant-garde art, the weight of the ugly increases, and it transforms into a new aesthetic quality. Adorno sees the reasons for this in the thoughtless development of technology based on violence against nature and man. The "lack of freedom" of a new level – dependence on technology – is one of the main reasons for the triumph of the ugly in twentieth-century art. Relishing anatomical abominations, physical deformity, disgusting and absurd relationships between people (theater of the absurd, etc.) is the evidence of the impotence of the "law of form" in the face of ugly reality, but also an internal protest against it" [55, 69]. A.F. Losev's words about "the machine and machinism" are also in tune with this idea [3, 334-335].

Вернуться

7

See Guggenheim Virtual Museum Project, New York, USA, 1999-2002 [39, 289]

Вернуться

8

See [45, 81,85]. See also Parametricist Manifesto by P. Schumacher [68].

Вернуться

9

"Man is a verbal animated being" [13].

Вернуться