Reflection by Petr Kalouda on Rezka's Lecture
Architecture and Terror
Reactions and Reflections on the Lecture of the Same Name by Petr Rezek
A brief one-sentence annotation from the author “When does the architect cross their competence by entering the realm of fear and horror? When does the builder exceed their position and turn the architect into a constructor?” presents the lecture itself. Petr Rezek, a graduate in psychology, philosophy, and aesthetics from the Faculty of Arts at Charles University in Prague, spoke among other things about the perception of photography, the genius loci of a place, and the interpretation of artworks. To begin with, let us ask why attending a lecture and subsequently understanding the issues may be necessary for (future) architects. I will directly continue with further questions. Can (and may) architecture be fashionable? What influence do restraint or conservatism have on the future of a building? The answer is as complicated as the topic of the aforementioned lecture. If architecture is fashionable, then it is current. Fashion (from French mode, which originated from Latin modus - measure, appearance, way, rule, regulation) is a currently preferred way (with a duration of days to years) of doing or using certain things. This manner of use or solution is not permanent, but changes over time. Thus, fashionable architecture cannot be lasting. Not with current materials, but with an overall measure. Therefore, if the architect's goal is to create a lasting balance of space, matter, and shape, I dare say that their works cannot be a matter of fashion. Let us realize that durability is achieved through a certain formality, restraint. Thus, the architect's work is to create current yet lasting material. I return to the first question. Why Architecture and Terror? It advises space creators on how to handle designs from which a building will one day arise. Just as the aforementioned “fashion” is an important question of future processes in the building. Just as in industrial operations, where it is necessary to respect processes, it is necessary in a house to respect the future presence of its inhabitants. The standard solution to this situation is adherence to standards and recommendations. At this point, the house is “perfect.” The question of compromise between the architect and the client, the possible (total) subjugation of one side, creates certain tension. Petr Rezek talks about this issue in his lecture. According to him, it is not possible for the builder to completely submit to the project author. But we will come back to this core later.
If we want to perceive the current experience, we must experience it. Thus, it is impossible to completely empathize with a situation that is only mediated to us. Just like with photography, we can debate the observer's ability to experience the moment of creation; we can doubt this even with other art forms. Therefore, we experience architecture only in the moment. Is architecture a compromise between durability and current relevance? For example, I will present a photograph of the Brno crematorium in two planes. In the first, the performed ceremony; in the second, an exterior view. In neither case are we able to fully understand the situation or the emotions. Let us focus on a less morbid exterior perspective. It is impossible to understand the space. Its scale, proportions in relation to a person. And last but not least, the emotions evoked by the building. If we look at a photo of the airport and the TGV station in Satolas by Santiago Calatrava, we certainly cannot experience the situation as we would if we were standing under the ribs of the ceiling structure. The same goes for viewing art or paintings. If a painting does not “pull us into itself,” we can hardly savor, for example, the sunrise over tulips as we would when experienced live. The terror of the image. The fear of the impossibility of knowing the true truth. Terror evokes horror, prevents real perception, and covers the eyes with a veil of fear. Rezek presents the terror of architecture in the collection of Loos's essays from the period 1897-1900. Here, at the request of the client, the architect creates a perfect space with everything included, yet entirely final. Completely final. It allows no room for further adjustments, not even for adding inventory. Including gifts, flowers. The house is “complete.” It needs nothing else. A perfection that cannot tolerate addition or subtraction. A jewel. However, a final jewel. The journey is the goal, not the goal is the journey. At this moment, the builder receives a poisoned gift. The joy of being gifted subsides, displaced by anxiety from a permanent state. The journey ends. There is a goal – death. This is how one can interpret Petr Rezek's lecture. In the final section, he talks about the representation of architecture within the framework of the experience of the moment. He demonstrates the use of blurred photographs with their imperfections and compares them to real life. A life in which we do not attach importance to everything, only to important details.
In conclusion, I would like to paraphrase Mies van der Rohe: "God is in the detail." In the detail of the material, processing. In the perspective of the details of future times. The population of the house will be its temporary “inventory.” It is therefore necessary to consider the significance of the architectural work as applied art. A compromise between minimal form with its elegance, beauty, and the myriad problems (requirements). The dilemma of combining a production hall and a magnificent sculpture – the goal, the work of the architect.
Reactions and Reflections on the Lecture of the Same Name by Petr Rezek
A brief one-sentence annotation from the author “When does the architect cross their competence by entering the realm of fear and horror? When does the builder exceed their position and turn the architect into a constructor?” presents the lecture itself. Petr Rezek, a graduate in psychology, philosophy, and aesthetics from the Faculty of Arts at Charles University in Prague, spoke among other things about the perception of photography, the genius loci of a place, and the interpretation of artworks. To begin with, let us ask why attending a lecture and subsequently understanding the issues may be necessary for (future) architects. I will directly continue with further questions. Can (and may) architecture be fashionable? What influence do restraint or conservatism have on the future of a building? The answer is as complicated as the topic of the aforementioned lecture. If architecture is fashionable, then it is current. Fashion (from French mode, which originated from Latin modus - measure, appearance, way, rule, regulation) is a currently preferred way (with a duration of days to years) of doing or using certain things. This manner of use or solution is not permanent, but changes over time. Thus, fashionable architecture cannot be lasting. Not with current materials, but with an overall measure. Therefore, if the architect's goal is to create a lasting balance of space, matter, and shape, I dare say that their works cannot be a matter of fashion. Let us realize that durability is achieved through a certain formality, restraint. Thus, the architect's work is to create current yet lasting material. I return to the first question. Why Architecture and Terror? It advises space creators on how to handle designs from which a building will one day arise. Just as the aforementioned “fashion” is an important question of future processes in the building. Just as in industrial operations, where it is necessary to respect processes, it is necessary in a house to respect the future presence of its inhabitants. The standard solution to this situation is adherence to standards and recommendations. At this point, the house is “perfect.” The question of compromise between the architect and the client, the possible (total) subjugation of one side, creates certain tension. Petr Rezek talks about this issue in his lecture. According to him, it is not possible for the builder to completely submit to the project author. But we will come back to this core later.
If we want to perceive the current experience, we must experience it. Thus, it is impossible to completely empathize with a situation that is only mediated to us. Just like with photography, we can debate the observer's ability to experience the moment of creation; we can doubt this even with other art forms. Therefore, we experience architecture only in the moment. Is architecture a compromise between durability and current relevance? For example, I will present a photograph of the Brno crematorium in two planes. In the first, the performed ceremony; in the second, an exterior view. In neither case are we able to fully understand the situation or the emotions. Let us focus on a less morbid exterior perspective. It is impossible to understand the space. Its scale, proportions in relation to a person. And last but not least, the emotions evoked by the building. If we look at a photo of the airport and the TGV station in Satolas by Santiago Calatrava, we certainly cannot experience the situation as we would if we were standing under the ribs of the ceiling structure. The same goes for viewing art or paintings. If a painting does not “pull us into itself,” we can hardly savor, for example, the sunrise over tulips as we would when experienced live. The terror of the image. The fear of the impossibility of knowing the true truth. Terror evokes horror, prevents real perception, and covers the eyes with a veil of fear. Rezek presents the terror of architecture in the collection of Loos's essays from the period 1897-1900. Here, at the request of the client, the architect creates a perfect space with everything included, yet entirely final. Completely final. It allows no room for further adjustments, not even for adding inventory. Including gifts, flowers. The house is “complete.” It needs nothing else. A perfection that cannot tolerate addition or subtraction. A jewel. However, a final jewel. The journey is the goal, not the goal is the journey. At this moment, the builder receives a poisoned gift. The joy of being gifted subsides, displaced by anxiety from a permanent state. The journey ends. There is a goal – death. This is how one can interpret Petr Rezek's lecture. In the final section, he talks about the representation of architecture within the framework of the experience of the moment. He demonstrates the use of blurred photographs with their imperfections and compares them to real life. A life in which we do not attach importance to everything, only to important details.
In conclusion, I would like to paraphrase Mies van der Rohe: "God is in the detail." In the detail of the material, processing. In the perspective of the details of future times. The population of the house will be its temporary “inventory.” It is therefore necessary to consider the significance of the architectural work as applied art. A compromise between minimal form with its elegance, beauty, and the myriad problems (requirements). The dilemma of combining a production hall and a magnificent sculpture – the goal, the work of the architect.
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
