EDUARD F. SEKLER Sometimes we may be close to despair when trying to cope with the visual world through words: the harder we try the more we seem to get lost between shifting and elusive drifts of irrelevancy, inappropriateness or vacuity. Indeed an artist may feel that theze is no place at all for verbal formulations in architecture and the visual arts; yet he will not be able to create without guidance from certain prin- ciples which he once acquired or formulated and which are in themselves not visual but conceptual. They may be a5 simple as a determination not to be influenced by any intel lectual considerations during the process of creation, ot they may be quite numerous and varied, and their validity may extend beyond the individual to an entire group where they appear linked to more general habits of thought aad pro- cedure. How action, thought and language interact has long been a field of philosophical inquiry, and we have been aught to recognize language as a mirror that has 0 be kept as clear as posible if itis co reflect truly the facts and, states of experience. The following brief essay is an attempt t increase clarity in a very limited area by considering Uhree closely related yet distinct concepts which are of particular relevance to discussions of architecture: structure, construc tion and tectonics. In colloquial usage the distinerion between structure and construction is blurred and the word tectonics is rare. We may refer to a building at times as a structure and at times $a construction without really intending to denote in one cave something different from the other. But such looseness seems inadmissible in critical usage, once we begin to think about the very real distinction that exists between the con- cepislinked to the words, ancl about the considerable increase in usefulness that accrues to the words if we insist on using, them with precision In onder toaecentuate the difference between “structure” and “constriction” all that is needed is a simple experiment of sat if we substitute “construction of society” or “construction of thought” in a statement where previeusly we had “structure of society” or “structure of thought” we recognize a drastic difference. While we find ourselves clined to think of “constriction” as the result of an activity which is “to construct,” we don’t seem 0 think as easily of “structure” as the result of a conscious activity which is “to structure.” The teal difference between these ovo words is that “construction” earries a connotation of something put together consciously while “structure” refers to an ordered STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION, TECTONICS arrangement of constituent parts in a much wider sense. With regard to architecture the exact relationship be- tween structure and construction now appears elear. Struc ture a8 the more general and abstract concept refers to a system or principle of arrangement destined to cope with forces at work in a building, such as post-and-lintel, arch, vault, dome and folded plate. Construction on the other hand refers to the concrete realization of a principle or sys- tema realization which may be carried out in a number of materials and ways. For example, the structural system which we call post-and-lintel may occur in wood, stone and metal and its elements may be fastened together by a num- ber of methods. The visible and tangible form which results from the process of construction can be discussed and judged in vari- ‘ous ways. As far as construction is concerned there are alt the questions of selecting and handling materials, of process and technique. As far as structure is concerned it is possible (6 assess the appropriateness and efficiency of the system What was chosen. “Wo achieve a desired end in building we may rely on the accurnulated strength and mass of assembled materials ‘This will be a constructional effort, But with a structural change, i.e. a change of arrangement which distributes its materials in another manner, the same end may be achieved ina more elegant fashion. A form may emerge that is a more direct result of, or reply to, the forces at work. In actual prac tice structural change and constructional effort are, or at east should be, inseparable and in continuous interaction. However, a fine structural system may sometimes find her poor construction while something ‘well constructed may be very inefficient from the structural point of view. ‘When a structural concept has found its imptementa through construction, the visual result will affect us through, ceetain expressive qualities which clearly have something to do with the play of forces and corresponding arrangement of parts in the building, yet cannot be described in terms of ‘construction and structure alone. For these qualities, which are expressive of a relation of form to force, the term tectonic should be reserved. The word tectonics derives from the same Greek root which we find in architecture and technology: we are 1e= minded of the basic human activity of giving visible shape to something new. Today the term may be used in & variety of contexts, as in biology and geology, but originally it was restricted with reference to the craft of the carpenter and 89the builder, who indeeet in ancient Greek was called éekton. When, in the easly nineteenth century, neoelassicisnn brought an increased egncem for a better understanding of Greck architecture, tectoni¢s was one of the concepts that was discussed at length and consequently given greater depth and precision of meaning. A meaning, incidentally, which had been well understood in carlier architectural theory even though it was then linked to a different terminology. In French seventrenth- and eighteenth-century writing, authors would speak of the need to give a building visual qualities capable of convincing a viewer about its solidity, And in this sense avaisemblance plausibility} became an im- portant criterion. “Ce west point arse de sendre un édifice solide, Fig. 1, Detail of the Greek Dorie Order, Parthenon, Athens, (Photo Dslf Setaebli) il faut que le ngement Péstime tel (1's NOt enough to vaake a building solid, judgment must estimate it as such), as one critic put it? ‘Around the middle of the nineteenth tentury two Ger= man architects and theorists of stature published books which had the word “tectonic” in their titles: both Karl Boetticher*) and Gottfried Semper”? treated asa key problem the relation of final and expressive architectural forms to prototypes born from technological, constructional necessity However, the fruitfil discussion which had its stare hexe was to remain incomplete until the ancient beliet in a direct relation between man and the forms of architecture (Vitru- Vius, Book IV, Chapter 1) was splendidly corroborated by Fig. 2, Late Gothic Ribbed Vaule, Parish Church, Vbbsit, Austria, (Phot Dr, Walter Wagner.)psychological investigations and the concept of Binjahlung (empathy) was formulated and elaborated by 2 number nf scholary, among them Theodor Lipps.” Empathy is one operating concept in Heinrich Wolffin’s brilliant early analyses of architecture and works of art to whiich all later writings on the topic owe such a gigantic debt. In his disertation of 1886, significantly entitled Prolegomenc zu ciner Pryckologie der Architektur (Prolegomena toward a Paychology of Architecture],*? he recognized tee- tonics as the particular manifestation of empathy in the ficld of architecture. He asked himself: ‘Wie koenmen tek- tonische Formen Auséruck sein?” (How can tectonic forms be expressive?); he found the following explanation: “Das Rild Fig. g. Masjid-ijemi, Istahan, Western Liwan, veen fron the courtyard, (Photo Fnedrich Pfeil) unserer sels chivben vir allem Erscheinungen unter” (We supposit our own image xnder all appearances.) Fourteen years later Scott expressed the same thought in words familiar sh-speaking architects: “We have transeribed ourselves into terms of architecture,” In exploding what be called the “mechanical fallacy” in architectural criticism he made an extremely clear and convincing distinetion beawoes, construction and tectonies, but failed to distinguish with equal clarity between construction and structure. While Seott has the metit of having transmitted the ideas of Wolfffin and Lipps together with his own lucid observations to a wide circle of English.speaking readers, we owe a more recent debt for a similar service wo Sir Herbert Fig. 4, Masjid-t-fami, tsfanan, Western Liwan, seen from the rear (Phots Dal Shei) ouRead. He drew attention to the writings of two other schotars who are exiremely rélevant in our context, Wilhelm Wor- ringer and Conrad Fiedler Worringer, in his dissertation of 1906," opposed the concept of empathy (0 that of abstraction and, illustrating his argument, arrived at welt characterized descriptions of tectonic expression in architecture but also at some gencral- izations which have berw criticized.® Fiedler, whose writ- ings date front around 1875, became most important for the understanding of twentieth-century art through having introduced the concept of “pure visibility.”® His thinking, ‘enables us now to recognize tectonic expression as one result. of that universal artistic activity which Paul Klee called ‘Mies van der Rohe, comer devi from fio Lake Shore Drive, hicago. (Photo Ben Wiest) ge “making visibie”™® and which for Fiedler was but one manifestation of a more general mental activity which he deseribed as “taking possession spiritually." ‘Through tectonics the architect may make visible, in a strong statement, that intensified kind of experience of ty which is the artist’s domain—in onr case the experi ence of forces related to forms in a building. Thus structure the intangible concept, is realized through construction and given visual expression through tectonics. Discussions of visual phenomena should not remain abstract. Three well known examples may serve to illustrate the argu- ment. Fig. 6, Mies van der Rohe, comer derail from 2801 Commonwealth, Chicago, (Photo Her Heese)The Greek Doric temple never ceases to move us as an architectural experience (Wig. 1}. Yat every beginning smdent of architecture knows today that its structural system of peste and-lintel, taken over from carlier timber prototypes, is ill suited 10 execution in stone—a material that does not lend itself to use in bending. Moreover as far as construction is concerted, few procedures can be more laborious and ineffi- cient than to join together, earefully and without mortar, that had to be cut with extreme precision and, in many cases, had to be given their final complicated shape in site. Yet who would apply criticism today in these terms ashen confronted with the reality of Paestum or the Parthe~ non? Obviously what maveers, apart from other factors Fig. 7. Mies van der Rohe, corner detal tom 2400 Lake View Drive, Chicago. (Phot Ben Wiete) j which are outside the scope of the present essay, is the tectonic statement: the noble gesture which makes visible a play offorces, of load and support in column and entablatu calling forth our own empathetic participation in the ex- PerSlollarly, we have leamedl thet in the experience af a Gothic church it is the tectonic statement which shares with space and Tight the task of conveying an anagogical meaning." In order to direct the beholder’s mind spiritually upward, a play of forces is enacted most dramatically and appeals directly through empathy, even though what goes on behind the s¢enes of ribbing and shafting may be different from what we are led to believe (Fig. 2). In Fig. & Mies van der Rohe, corner detail Seam 1 Charles Center Baltimore, (Pata HE. & Sckler)retrospect itis nor diffiewl wo sce how a great deal of effort expended in the fairly révent polemical discussion of Viollet- le-Duc's argument about “medieval rationalism’ Gothic architecture might have been saved, had a conceptual framework prevailed in which structure, construction and tectonics were clearly distinguished. Perhaps the most convincing visual demonstration of the difference between structure, construction and tectonics that could be wished is provided by the ensemble ofa great Persian mosque such as the Masjid-iclami in Isfahan, Standing inside the courtyard and facing one of the liwans, a high vaulted niche with a door in che cemter—the struc- tural principle is immediately apparent (Fig. 3): arch and vault axe exploited in a fashion as magnificent 2 in the Gothic cathedral, but the tectonic expression is entirely different. ‘The tectonics here depend not only on the great arch-form butequally os the geometry ofthe ceramicsurtaces which frame the arch and on the vauilting which seems to hang from the sofit of the arch, rather than to support it What comes as a real shock, however, a revelation of the rear of the sayoe Diwan (Fig. 4), when suddenly the world of construction the agglomeration of brick arches and. but- ‘resses—-becomes apparent which wems to Rave litle in common with the architectural expression in front Our diseussion ¢onld be extended ta many more ex- amples and we would find an amazing ri¢hness in the way in which our three concepts may enter new combinations. ‘The actual construction may tnilitate against the structural principle, as in those examples from early civilizations where forms were translated from pliable materials into stone. The tectonic expression may be deliberately unclear, kaviny a bebolder macvetiing at vast expanses oF matter hovering apparently without effort over @ void, as in © many Byzan- tine churches, There may be 2 tretante negation created with the aid of atectonie forms which tend t» disturb the viewer, as in Manneris, architecture; and there may evea be a tectonic overstatement of what once was a simple constructional device, as in the etabsorate bracketing that is a chief feature of Japaneze monumental architecture Bnet finally there are Grose care eases when a building is an almost perfect realization of a scructural principle in terms of # most appropriate and effieient construction while, at tlhe samé time, a clearly related unequivocal tectonic ex pression is found, Ar onc end of the scake such huildlings enay eccur in anonymous architecture, a& in the cormgated, bechive-shaped mud huts of the Mousgoum tribe from Lake Tehad, $0 often illuserated in 4) AC the other 4 end of the seale there are such magnificent realizations at same of Torroja’s buildings and Nervi’s exhibition hall at ‘Torino which illustrates what be himself called a “synthesis of statie-aesthetic scusitivity, (echnical Knowledge and mast ery of execution." In this description mastery of execution obviously stands for “construction” in our terminology, while weehmnical knowledge may be related to “structtire,”” and static-aesthetic sensitivity (© empathy and chus to “tec~ tonics.” Torraja’s and Nerwi’s work is also excellently suited (o remind us of the simple truth that powerful tectonic ex- pression treed not be tied to a system which recalls the Interplay of verticaliy and horiaoncality that goes with post-and-tintel Erich Mendelsolin must have recognized this at an early stage of his carcer when he wrote "Die Bezithongen zaviscen Fragen wid Lassen diese shnivber fuse immer feststchenden Gesebze werden auch ibr Bild undeuten mucisen .. 2” (Te evkations hheeween support and load ~these laws apparently. fixed Torever=seilt also have w re-evaluate their image. ).16 Great architects have always bandied the elemcats of wctonie expression with extreme care and untiring: imagina tion, whether they wer: aware of ie or not. When Frank Lloyd Weight explained the form of his Unitarian Church, Mazdlison, Wisconsin, by placing his hands togedher as prayer, Hlustrating “the expression of reverence andl aspi tion...” he was not deztionstrcning struceure but tectonies.!”) larly, whac so often is releeced to erroncously as cei with excellent constuction in the cewere of Mics van der Robe, tueas out to bs, on closer inspection, tectonic expressiveness fefined 10 att excréme degree. A comparison of the ways in which he has handled eorner-piers in a se- quence of buildings will bear out the truth of this assertion, for we find variations which have but fide structural or constrwetional justification fut which are most telling tec~ tonically (Pigs. $-8). A comparable suudy of Le Corbusier's concrete supports in a series of buildings also discloses a revealing variety of profiles which cannot be explained by structural or eonsteuctional seasons alone bat which as far as teeténie expression gors is a “pure creation of bis spirit” meant to provoke “plastic emotions.” Among our three relaied concepts tectenies és the one most suomnonsly webiteccural, which is to say the architect may not be able to control the conditions of structure and construction as completely as he would like to, buit he is the undisputed master of tectonic expresion. Here his per formance aesuredly can be discussed on his own terms, andbis artistic personality and character will manifest them selves most clearly: Accordingly, in architectural eticism tectonics would seem to deserve as much consideration as some of the other clemnents which fave beca singled out For spetial discussion, thief among them space. 41 will be Imporant however 10 remember tht whatever i singled out, is isolated by & deliberate acs of the evitie for purposes of analysis; to speak of architecture in terms of tectonirs alane would be as one= sided as fa speak of it in terms of space alone, Just as the [a Font de Saint Youne and CAB, Brea, fscmon Pe Bi a Porcdsteare, Paris 11734) p. 47, quoted in Bini! Kaulmann “tl Architchinrthearie d. Cansumsischen Klawik ete,’” Refetonion fier Ronit viensba, XIAN Up. B12, 2. Rarl Moeticher, Die Tatami do Hele, Botan (1852 Grits Semper, Der Stl iy dee elnisrke and ieischen Krewe, Brumivik 1361), Sfurits (1803): 2ne eaiion Nhunieh 187 4 According a Vernon Lee (Brau and Uplate, London (1912) p20) the translation of “Binfochlang” ax empashs due t Etvard Titehenee ‘ob uel ica ha Pcs of agit Process, London 1909 six year After ine tt volume of Theodor Lipp tte had peated Reprinted in: Heine Within, iene Sine, Bile (1946) 6. Genes Sco, The drchivence 4f Ramone, od eA, Ladin (1924) 213. Nhe autor seem to Wallin fa Ri price sade Lipps ie Foote ee ps 213. Fora ciscasion of Sots telat 1 Lipp or sce Reyney Banham, They and Design in th Bis Metin ee, Laon Toit. BF 1, Alsen and Biathy, Worvingesdissessaion waa plished ae hook Jn 1908; an Engh ttansation by M. Bullock wax glshed tv New York in 143 findings of psychology have moved from isolating such comparatively simple single explanations as. “empathy” toward and beyond the esmplexities ofinterpreting “Geyta”™ as a. whole, architectural criceisen also hax 10 move int the direction of iatexpreting architectural experience asa totaly. Both in creating and judging architecture those attempts will bbe most suecessfit which are nourished from snd return (0 a fullyess of bring that is wé longer wholly subject 16 ecnscious contsgl or completely amenable to intellectual analysis 8. Ems H, Gombrich, drt ant asin New York (1960) p. 2; Mever Schpte "Stte" in cable Tada, 6, A. Kevcber, Chieage 5 9, Wernes Uofnann, “Studion aur Kunstheore det 20, fash Sc. aniteecie XVI (1993) 138 10, Bot Bite The Thing i, J Spies cd, odo (1961) p, 78. TV: Conrad Heer, “Bamertingen‘aeber“Wisen und Geschichte der tukung,” Device Rando, SV (J870) pe 481 1, twin Panes, Along the isan, Garden Cy, N. 91955 128; Ou on Sinn, Fe Gah Cateel, Nev York {3955} p. 6 Paul Brant Ye ooh ce, Peineetan “196 18. Pol Abraha, VenteDra ole toate mia, Pass (134) U4. heb oc Cancrnn,Parin(€952 p33 U5, The Mont Fans Ne, London (1897; pee 16. Erich Mein, re oes seat, O, Reyered, Mui (1461 1a, Frat Lig Wot Writing and Bulge, etc by Ra Kany find Ben Racthun, New Vo 960 pt. tn. Le Corbusier, Teedt # New archers, race. F Eichelly, Loniton finan pt)