Tradition of tectonic architecture

Architectural theories divide architecture into tectonic and stereotomic. Since tectonic architecture interprets certain building realities, it is necessary to see a certain realism in it, and thus also the possibility of partial instruction for creation by the method of socialist realism.

The basis of the oldest tectonic architecture is the constructional system of the architrave, whose origins must be sought in the triliths of the megalithic people. This system was shape-wise developed by the Greeks and later by the Romans.

Greek architecture can serve as an example of a realistic way of thinking about construction and its representation. It is an artistic transposition of constructed thought into matter. By thinking about construction and expressing certain static realities, the Greeks created an artistic architectural form.

The fundamental artistic idea of this architecture lies in capturing the static tasks of the individual parts of the building organism in shape. It is a set of architectural forms that express their static role through form and are integrated into a cohesive whole. In this system, the column clearly interprets its role of carrying the beam, the echinus of the Doric capital has the role of receiving and further transmitting the load, and so on. It is constructively functional architecture. The column thus supports and expresses its role, becoming, over time, a symbol of this role. The shape of the column expresses carrying, whether it actually carries or not. And therefore, even the abbreviation of the column on the wall, i.e., the pilaster, half-column, or the three-quarter column, symbolizes this task, and the entablature then represents and simultaneously translates the role of the beam.

This task-based articulated architecture is called tectonic architecture. And it is precisely in the interpretation of the roles of its individual elements that one can see a certain realism.

In a different way than the Greeks, tectonics was expressed in Gothic architecture. By developing the ribbed structure of vaults, using pointed arches, creating a stone skeleton, utilizing flying buttresses and arches, a new distinctive system of construction was created. Through artistic representation of construction and the creation of new shapes, a completely new artistic system emerged. Today, this set of shapes may appear to us as a closed, completed tectonic system, where stone is stressed exclusively under compression and thus is used only in the sense of its most significant property. In the peak period of Gothic, the network of profiled ribs clearly translates the nerve framework of the vaulting. The individual ribs converge from the apex bosses and logically unite in the bundled pillars. These ribs are the representatives of pressures and forces, and the pillars clearly take on these concentrated pressures. The flying buttresses, enriched with numerous corbels and stone lacework, acknowledge their role of receiving the inclined pressures from the high-up vaults. All parts of this entire system artistically express their constructive tasks through form. Therefore, this architecture can also be labeled as tectonic architecture.

We thus encounter two principles of tectonic architecture: one is based on the architrave system, i.e., the ancient Greek one, the other on the vault system, i.e., the Gothic one.

Ancient Greek architecture makes a certain mistake by stressing stone under bending, but conversely, it created an architectural form that is infused with humanism and is therefore often imitated. Gothic, which does not make such technical mistakes in this sense, created its own tectonic architecture infused with mysticism, and for that reason, it is only rarely imitated.

As a contrast to tectonic architecture, stereotomic architecture is introduced, which is architecture where there is no effort to express statical tasks of the individual parts of the building organism through form. Stereotomic architecture has the impression of a unified, even monolithic cube, in which spaces are subsequently hollowed out and openings are cut out. Stereotomic architecture seems to suppress the artistic expression of construction, while tectonic architecture, on the contrary, artistically expresses construction. Therefore, it is likely that tectonic architecture will always be closer to the notions of architecture built by the method of socialist realism than stereotomic architecture.

Apart from these two distinct groups, tectonic and stereotomic, various intermediate stages and transitions must be accepted, leaning more or less towards one of them.

For example, pillars without marked bases and capitals and arches without archivolts fall into the stereotomic group. If a pillar in this group is equipped with a base and capital, but the arch remains unchanged, this assembly can be categorized into transitional types; however, if the arch is further expressed with an archivolt, it should already be included in the tectonic group.

Through various bindings and connections of individual architectural elements, whether tectonic or stereotomic, architectural compositions arise that incline more or less towards one of the mentioned opposing groups. Architectural compositions are further part of urban compositions. Both compositions, architectural and urban, form a whole, one is conditioned by the other.

These compositions create, with some exceptions, internal and external architectural spaces. The internal space may seem to us as the reverse of the walls forming architectural masses, which create the façade of these same walls as the external architectural space. Thus, architectural mass has two faces: internal and external. Both create spaces of different purposes. Internal spaces generally obey different requirements and laws than external spaces. It is therefore imperative for the wall forming the architectural mass to have multiple demands placed upon it, and only by balancing these demands will a realistic unity of architectural and urban composition emerge.

From the tight interrelationship of the internal space with the architectural mass, or with the architectural composition, it should follow that the internal spaces will influence the architectural composition of masses and façades. And indeed, in tectonic architecture, we encounter compositions that acknowledge the arrangement of internal spaces and often utilize them for the artistic shaping of façades. This occurs, for instance, through the intentional expression of individual floors or large and important internal spaces in the architectural composition. However, sometimes we also encounter compositions that suppress this internal arrangement of spaces, as is the case, for example, in many instances where a so-called high order is used. In these compositions, there is generally a discord between the internal space, or internal spaces, and the façade. Conversely, here compatibility between the façade and the external space may be achieved.

In these various examples of tectonic architecture, one can see different attitudes towards the realistic expression of certain realities, whether constructive or operational or ideological, through architectural composition. It is very likely that a truly realistic work would be one where there is harmony between internal space, façade, and external space, between form, construction, material, operation, and ideological content.

Thus, the internal space and external space form a dialectical unity, expressed by architectural mass. It seems necessary to maintain a certain measure in the quest to express different functions, so that the results of these efforts do not culminate in pure functionalism or another formalism.

Similarly to how the architectural mass has been evaluated, space can also be assessed in this sense. Space, whose composition from individual volumes is apparent, i.e., space that is optically clearly defined, may be considered as realistically presented and, for simplicity, referred to as static. Conversely, space, whose composition from various volumes is not apparent, where often even the entities from which it is created are not precisely expressed, i.e., space that is optically vaguely defined, may be considered as unrealistically presented and, for simplicity, referred to as dynamic. In the first case, space is composed of distinctly defined volumes; in the second case, space is created through the interpenetration and mixing of various volumes and is as if kneaded into a monolithic spatial entity, impressionistically amorphous.

For external space, similar principles may probably be applied as for architectural mass and internal space. If external space is created from easily comprehensible volumes, it may be deemed static. Otherwise, it is dynamic.

In external space, we encounter one more exception that does not occur in internal space. It is a solitary, unique, or isolated building. Such a structure asserts itself with its mass within the landscape, generally dominating it. It becomes a part of and sometimes even a dominant element of the landscape image, in some cases part of the urban image.

Long-term use of the same or modified bindings and compositions of tectonic or stereotomic shapes, and further creating spaces, temporarily referred to as static and dynamic, builds our environment and creates a tradition in which we grow and are nurtured. We and our environment create a certain unity. We build our environment, and this environment transforms us. Our environment educates us in a certain emotional orientation. Therefore, it is essential for the creation by the method of socialist realism to understand this emotional orientation, to know this tradition.

As we walk through our architectural heritage, we see that the concept of stereotomic architecture is closest to Romanesque architecture. The monuments of this time are sturdy structures with compact outlines, with openings seemingly added to the mass. However, we already encounter elements that might be designated as tectonic. For example, a column divided into a shaft, base, and capital, as well as consoles and others. But let us concede that in this creation, the artistic focus in the spirit of stereotomy prevails. Thus, stereotomy also has a certain share in shaping our sense of architecture. However, we encounter Romanesque architecture in our lands only exceptionally; Romanesque structures are not a numerous part of our environment, and thus we can deduce that this architecture could not significantly and fundamentally influence our sensibilities.

Since the Middle Ages, with minor exceptions, tectonic architecture has been used in our countries. First Gothic tectonics and then various modifications of the tectonic of classical Greece and Rome. From this, it can be derived that our sense of architecture is relatively little influenced by stereotomic architecture.

The same applies to internal and external spaces. Internal spaces are usually created from various geometrical volumes that are clearly defined. Only in some cases, as in certain interiors of churches built in the spirit of radical Baroque, do we encounter dynamic spaces. Therefore, it will be possible to assume that in general, static internal spaces predominately prevail in our land, i.e., built in the spirit of realistic sensibility.

With external spaces, we often encounter vaguely static spaces. Our external spaces are usually formed over centuries and have resulted from the composition of smaller or larger volumes. Long-term construction of these spaces has introduced a certain variability into them, a diversity of walls and volumes, thereby creating picturesque compositions in which original forms merge into wholes, intentionally only rarely achievable.

Even with some exceptions, it will be possible to deduce that our architectural environment is predominantly created with a sense for realism in a tectonic manner, or statically, which influences our sensibilities and prepares us for the realistic shaping of architecture.

Both tectonic and stereotomic architectures can be created using various building systems. Essentially, there are two very different ways: assembling and monolithic. In the assembling system, architecture arises from the composition of smaller parts, like the assembly of individual components of building mass. An example of such a primitive building system is the trilith, a set of three stones. In classic form, it is preserved in articulated Greek architecture. Another means of this assembling technique is shown by Gothic architecture. The fundamental constructive idea of these architectures is to create a work through the assembly, connection, and binding of individual pieces of building mass, purposefully shaped in advance for these purposes. The size of these pieces—prefabricates—was to some extent dependent on transportation and installation capabilities. These were brick, block, beam.

Monolithic buildings are not an assembly; they are created entirely from one solid piece of building mass. In some cases, they are carved from rock formations, such as rock temples and tombs in Egypt, Ethiopia, India, and elsewhere. In these cases, it was not a construction in the strict sense of the word, where buildings grow through a gradual addition of more and more pieces of building mass, but rather a carving, cutting the work from solid mass by gradually removing excess parts. The building is, in this case, unified in its integrity by its cohesion and forms a compact whole.

In the second case, monolithic buildings arise as a cast or imprint of plastic materials. Such are, for example, some of our structures made of reinforced concrete. Historical monolithic buildings, such as the aforementioned rock temples and tombs, usually adhere to the shaping of assembled buildings, as used in that particular region and period. Therefore, there is no artistic use of the cohesion of the building mass in them. On the contrary, our monolithic reinforced concrete buildings exhibit various ways of shaping. In some cases, these structures are somewhat illogically adorned with the shapes of classical tectonic architecture, which arose from the assembling system, while in other cases, they are created as stereotomic architectures, and again sometimes one can sense an effort to express certain static realities, i.e., an effort to create their own tectonics.

Monolithic reinforced concrete buildings, which are adorned with a classical morphology, contribute to maintaining the tradition of classical tectonics. The other two methods go beyond it and often against it. This is the case with reinforced concrete buildings, understood as stereotomic. During the period of capitalist entrepreneurship, a significant number of buildings constructed in a stereotomic manner emerged. These are various functionalist, constructivist, and formalist architectures. Their new façades gleamed with their cleanliness against a cluster of older dirty and unmaintained houses and often created in us notions of comfortable apartments. And perhaps for this reason, to a certain extent, they attracted and contributed to shaping our sense of architecture. This constructivist and functionalist construction was too closely linked to the patterns of engineering structures built from barely recognized reinforced concrete and was unable, thus far, to create shapes in the spirit of realism, in the spirit of tectonic tradition. In this constructive primitiveness and in a certain disregard for our optical perceptions, these buildings became cosmopolitan.

However, if this creation is to be properly evaluated, it is necessary to take into account some circumstances that had a significant influence on the entire development. It is essential to consider that this creation wanted to be, in many cases, a true expression of the materials and constructions used, and therefore it was created in lively opposition to the old classical tectonics, which conflicted with the new materials and constructions. Applied to these materials and constructions, the old tectonic form language becomes untrue and false. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider that new architecture arose in deviation from younger decorativeness, in the grip of new constructive ideas, and that it wanted to be, like any final creation, modern—contemporary. It arose with the discovery of new building materials, such as steel and reinforced concrete, and from the demands of new types of construction that place extraordinarily high demands on construction, both operationally and constructively. Steel and reinforced concrete bridges are being built in spans previously only imagined, hangars and factory halls of astonishing dimensions are rising, and skyscrapers grow to fantastic heights. All this construction activity is non-traditional, completely new, and revolutionary. Moreover, this new construction often aims to serve new social ideas. Numerous architects, informed by the study of Marxist classics, strive to draw the correct conclusions for construction. Just as this new thinking is rationalistic and aimed against the old social order, the new construction is also anti-traditional and cannot suffice with the old shape inventory. Therefore, it rejects all traditional elements of tectonics and decorations and seeks to utilize as much as possible new materials. In the spirit of this new formal rationalism, they should give a new expression to the architecture of new building materials and the new constructions arising from them. It was entirely logical that these new economic efforts were exploited and abused by capitalist entrepreneurs and that a new, entirely utilitarian cosmopolitan architecture was created in a short time.

At this point, it becomes evident that these beginnings of the new architecture of the 19th and 20th centuries are mere attempts. It becomes clear that concrete prefabricates allow for new mass construction, that monolithic concrete provides architects with the opportunity to realize forms almost freely in expansive space, and that other new materials offer previously unimaginable developments of fantasy. All this creation is new and often completely foreign to our traditional sensibilities.

In the new materials and constructions, completely non-traditional new shapes arise; new operations require dimensions that slowly escape our sensory understanding, leading to new bindings in proportions that we cannot yet securely evaluate. It is becoming apparent that reinforced concrete demands its own tectonics, which we do not yet know, but which allows construction in scales and proportions significantly different from those we have been raised on, yet which meet and arise from new demands and are therefore to some extent realistic.

And in this frenzied and perhaps somewhat chaotic creation, where monolithic reinforced concrete is illogically adorned with irrational classical articulation, where the monolithic skeleton of the building is uneconomically clad with ordinary bricks and shaped as stereotomic, where on all sides there is a lack of measure and thus significant transgressions against sound reasoning, that Latin ratio, and against economy, at this acute moment comes the expression of Khrushchev.

Khrushchev correctly points out certain formalist understandings of architecture, whether it pertains to form or material, and emphasizes economy. He points to operations and prefabrication, which not only enables rapid and mass construction but will also allow for the creation of a new architecture, in which new shapes should be tectonically built in the spirit of our traditionally tectonic-created environment, arising from new humanism, from ideas and the materials and constructions used.

---

Résumé
From the reality that the architecture of our environment is predominantly created in a tectonic way, it follows that the suitability of this method should also apply to contemporary architectural creation. Because in this traditional architecture, architectural form is used as an artistic means of expression of construction principles, new artistic forms should also arise in the same way, i.e., they should stem from a new humanism, from ideas, and arise based on new production, new materials and constructions, prefabricates, panels, etc.