O ARHITEKTURI_____________...>________...>______...>__>_>_____>_____________________>>>>_____________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________>>>>__>> e n g l i s h

>> da li je arhitektura na prekretnici izmedju funkcije koja je dikirana pragmaticnom i materijalnom ekonimijom i funkcije koja proizlazi iz potreba drugacije ekonomije kao na primer ekonomije umetnosti...

Za mene je arhitektura u pocetku predstavljala disciplinu koja se bavi oblikovanjem velikih prostornih struktura i koja bi se mogla porediti sa vajarstvom. U tom smislu, posmatrala sam arhitektu kao skulptora, kao nekog ko kreira svoja dela manipulišuci velikim komadima materije i postavlja ih - izlaže u najjavnijem prostoru grada i najširoj publici, ostvarujuci tako prostor uticaja koji je veci od prostora bilo koje vizuelne umetnosti. Skulptura i arhitektura odnose se prema prostoru koristeci slicna sredstva, one ga odreduju. Može se reci da ga skluptura zauzima dok ga arhitektura ograduje. Kasinje sam shvatila da je takva romanticna vizija teško primenljiva na ono što se ocekuje od jednog servisera osnovnih ili posebnih ljudskih potreba (za skloništem ili samopotvrdivanjem, sa licnim pecatom autora ili investitora)

Da li arhitektura mora da služi necemu i da bude korisna? Možda je konacno došlo vreme da se i ona ovih stega oslobodi? Ponavljam, možda je danas moguce baviti se neupotrebljivom i ekspresivnom arhitekturom bez katastrofalnih posledica po egzistenciju i opšteg društvenog ignorisanja. Na razne nacine, ovakva razmišljanja nikada nisu bila zaista neupotrebljiva ali nisu nužno služila „sklonišnoj“ arhitekturi!

Ne mislim da treba praviti neke konacne i banalne rezove sa prošlošcu. Može se reci da su danas i dalje prisutni gotovo svi istorijski pristupi. Možda je istina da je danas razmišljanje ograniceno na usko „mainstream“ korisno i prakticno ali nicim nije ogranicen pojedinac da autisticno, u uskom krugu fanova ili prijatelja, razmišlja na svoj nacin. Ova civilizacija se usložnjava, ona manje gubi na raznovrsnosti nego što dobija.

U vecini slucajeva, arhitekta se bavi zapisivanjem tudih ideja o onome što je lepo, korisno, udobno i reprezentativno. On ispunjava želje malim ljudima, u najboljem slucaju – primenjujuci svoje tehnicko znanje i zdrav razum. Ukoliko (cak ni) to ne radi, on je najobicniji nasilnik forme i sadržaja koji svoju nesigurnost ispoljava kroz nametanje svojih vrednosti i ideja nekom nedužnom stvoru ili grupi ljudi.

Ako govorimo o duhu vremena, onda je arhitektura u još vecem problemu – avangarda je uvek na cekanju da je razume neka sledeca generacija i prihvate njeni unuci kao „mainstream“. Tako da je avangardna arhitektura osudena na vizije i utopije jer ne znam koji bi se uspešan i zadovoljan covek (u svom vremenu) dao nagovoriti da ide napred više nego što je za njega neophodno da bi preživeo? Kako ce doci do ispoljavanja, izražavanja, javnog istupanja jednog arhitekte-umetnika ako on ne može pridobiti poverenje malih ljudi koji odlucuju o ulaganjima i zauzimanju javnog prostora?

Potrebno je sada pozabaviti se ovim problemom oblikovanja, skulpturom velikih dimenzija koja je oslobodena svake opšte arhitektonske vrednosti (kao što su upotreba – funkcionalnost, uklapanje u okruženje, izražajnost ili ne kroz osmišljavanje fasade...). Nasuprot tome, ove opšte vrednosti treba da posluže jednom cilju, koji je usmeren ka kreiranju prostorne strukture koja izražava ideje autora o lepom i korisnom.

selenasavic.at.artfama@gmail.com

ON ARCHITECTURE_____________...>________...>______...>__>_>___________________________>>>>___________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________>>>>__>> s r p s k i

>> is architecture on a milestone between a function dictated by pragmatism and material economies and a function that derives form the needs of other economies, for example economy of art...

I used to think of architecture as a discipline of giving form to big spatial structures that could be compared to sculpturing. I considered an architect a sculptor that works with large peaces of substance and exhibits them in the public space to the widest circle of audience. This way he seizes an area of influence that is wider than any of those of (other) visual arts. Sculpture and architecture are treating space using similar resorts, they define it. We could say that sculpture invades it while architecture encloses it.

Later, I realized that such a romantic vision of an architect’s task is hardly applicable to what is expected from a simple service of human needs (for shelter as well as for self-confirmation through representative monumentality). Does architecture have to serve something and be useful? Maybe it is finally high time for it to set free from these restraints? There is a large amount of differences between the historical approach to art and architecture and the one of now days. Today, it might be possible to engage in un-useful and expressive architecture without disastrous effects on one’s material existence and absolute social ignorance. In many different ways, thinking that does not only serve the shelter-architecture, exists already for a long time and has never been really useless.

I don’t really think that some final cut with the past should be made. Today we have almost every historical approach still present. This civilisation is getting more complex, we gaining in diversities are, more than reducing them. In most of the cases, an architect is working on writing down other people’s ideas of what is aesthetically and formally valuable, beautiful, useful, comfortable and representative. He is making small dreams come true, using his technical knowledge and reasonable sense. If he is not (even) doing that, he is a simple tyrant of form and content who is demonstrating his insecurity in his work by imposing his system of values and his ideas to an innocent creature or a group of people.

Speaking of the spirit of time, architecture is in an even bigger problem. Avant-garde has always been waiting for the next generation of people to understand it and their grand-children to accept it as a mainstream. This way, avant-garde architecture is condemned to visions and utopias. Where could we find a successful and contented person who could be (in his lifetime) talked into going forward more that he really needed to survive? How are we going to see expression and emergence of ideas from an architect if he cannot gain confidence from short-sighted people who decide on investments and public space occupation?

At this moment, it is necessary to take care of this problem of shaping, large dimensioned sculpture that is liberated from the bare system of universal values in architecture (as functionality, contextualisation, expression through the design of façade, rational usage of a square centimetre...). These common values should be all serving one goal, which is directed to creation of a spatial structure that expresses ideas in their purity.

selenasavic.at.artfama@gmail.com