Formation of modern architectural concepts

Introduction. The article addresses issues of methodological exchange in architectural studies and related fields of activities focused on problems of interaction between man and environment. The author makes a critical appraisal of leading modern trends in the architectural morphogenesis in foreign countries and Russia.

Materials and methods. As a result of cross comparisons made within the framework of the study of theoretical publications and full-scale materials, now the human + environment binomial is the subject of research that synthesizes almost all theoretical developments as the main code of interaction. It is clear that lines of theory and practice have not coincided in ordinary and representative architecture for a long time, and architectural theory has been transformed into a scholastic visionary science that tends towards design. This is confirmed by professional publications and materials concerning existing and designed architectural facilities considered during the preparation of the article, as well as conceptual developments made by leading architects of our time.

Results. The genetic sequence of trends in the formation of architectural stylistics typical for the most recent decades is presented in a condensed form, limited to mainstream works, while engineering characteristics of facilities are disregarded. The main creative lines and personalities of foreign “masters” of architecture are identified; present-day areas of research and the research methodology are correlated with their activities.

Conclusions. A fundamental difference is identified between social prerequisites and vectors of architectural development in Russia and worldwide. Characteristics of positive and negative manifestations of evolution of global architecture are listed. A tendency towards formation of a paradigm of “intellectual architecture”, morphological and technological choice of “pure forms”, minimalism in aesthetic programs of architecture, greater importance of principles of expediency, industrialization, standardization in design are identified; hypotheses are made in order to solve problems of human-computer polarization in the future profession of an architect.

1. Dobritsyna I.A. From postmodernism to nonlinear architecture: architecture in the context of modern philosophy. Moscow, Progress-tradition Publ., 2004; 416. (rus.).

2. Telichenko V.I., Slesarev M.Yu. “Green” standardization of technologies for forming the nature-friendly living environment. Vestnik MGSU [Proceedings of the Moscow State University of Civil Engineering]. 2018; 13(5):558-567. DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2018.5.558-567 (rus.).

3. Baudrillard J. Simulakre et simulation. Tula, Tula Polygraphist, 2013; 204. (rus.).

4. Kissel’ M.A. Metaphysics in the Age of Science: the experience of R.J. Collingwood. St. Petersburg, Art-SPB Publ., 2002; 300. (rus.).

5. Derrida Zh. Letter and difference / transl. from French ed. by V. Lapitsky. St. Petersburg, Academic project Publ., 2000; 428. (rus.).

6. Yurovskaya Yu.V. “Kinetic morphologies” and their translation into Zaha Hadid’s language of architectural forms. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. 2022; 2(59):58-68. DOI: 10.24412/1998-4839-2022-2-58-68. EDN RLBKBN. (rus.).

7. Salingaros N. Anti-architecture and deconstruction: the triumph of nihilism. Moscow ; Ekaterinburg, Armchair scientist, 2017; 296. EDN XTVQRQ. (rus.).

8. Sipkin P.A. The creative concept of Rem Kulhaas: representations, models, embodiment : abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Architecture. Moscow, 2015; 33. (rus.).

9. Brooks X. Zaha Hadid. I don’t make nice little building. The Guardian. 2013.

10. Shumacher P. The Autopoiesis of Architecture, Volume I: A New Framework for Architecture. John Willey & Sons, London, 2011; 478.

11. Maturana U., Varela F. The tree of knowledge. Biological roots of human understanding. Moscow, URSS, LENNAND Publ., 2019; 316. (rus.).

12. Severtsov A.N. Morphological patterns of evolution. Moscow; Leningrad, Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1939; 610. (rus.).

13. Berg L.S. Nomogenesis or evolution based on regularities. Petrograd, State Publishing House, 1922; VIII:306. (rus.).

14. Haitun S.D. Society against man. Laws of social evolution. Moscow, URSS, Lenand Publ., 2006; 333. (rus.).

15. Schumacher P. Interview: the autopoiesis of architecture (conversation with Loreto Flores). Revista de arquitectura. 2011; 23. (rus.).

16. Skvortsov A.V. Delaunay triangulation and its application. Tomsk, Publishing house of the University, 2002; 128. EDN RZIMNT. (rus.).

17. Bell D. The coming post-industrial society, cultural contradictions of capitalism. Moscow, 1978. (rus.).

18. Lasitskaya E.V. The conception of autopoiesis: existence, cognition, activity. Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. 2011; 11(4):14-16. EDN ONGHIL. (rus.).

19. Moiseev N.N. A word about the scientific and technological revolution. Moscow, Molodaya gvardiya Publ., 1985; 238. (rus.).

20. Nazaretyan A.P. Civilizational crises in the context of universal history. Moscow, Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation, 2001; 239. EDN YUMNIR. (rus.).