there can be an abstract 'art' at al restonng three-d1mensionality to the

'picture'; the nature of the 'construct1ve' and of a 'construction' Kandinsky

treats these two throughout as attributes of and means to compos1t1on'.
where as Chapter 4 shows, the young artists of lnkhuk who inherited a
programme from h1m 1n the early Twent ies dec1ded they were opposites.
Tatlin and Malevich
Activity never slackened on Russian exhibition circuits during the War. Two
young art1sts, Malev1ch and Tatlin, took off from the general platform of late
Cubist work in entirely new directions. Stimulae acknowledged by both
mcluded, in different ways, Moscow's vast 1con exh1bltion of 1913. Tatlin
recounted how t he richly three-dimens1ona1 1con masks' or oklady, of
precious metals and stones were what caused him 'to drill h1s boards,
mount metal rings on them'
12
His v1sit to Picasso in Paris was also crucial
as he was now making reliefs. though they st: had 'subjects'. and Tathn
would soon move beyond that (as Kandinsky had asked. are 'subjects' what
art is about?). Like Kandinsky, Ma1ev1ch pursued Theosophy. His break into
abstract1on was a set for the Futurist opera Victory over the Sun m 1913.
By the first year of the War. 1914-15, these two art1sts who would
dominate the whole avant-garde had both made that breakthrough in their
formal language which would set the agenda for everything that fo11owed
At a seres of exhib1t1ons dunng 1915 and 1916, their new work 1eft coll-
eagues stunned, sometimes favourably, somet1mes 1n disgust When Tatlin
came to hang a board with some nails m 1t at a show of 'Moscow artists for
main engine in the evolution of new Russian art around 1910, had now
lost its mean1ng.' Tatlin produced a pamphlet illustrating his reliefs m 1915."
Malev1ch gave a polem1c 1eg1t1matlon of h1s work m a booklet called From
Cub1sm and Futurism to Supremat1sm: the New Painterly Realism. More
graphically, he wrote in letters to h1s friend Mikhail Matiush1n of how h1s
painting had now 'abandoned the earth' to pursue an 'aspiration towards
space that is deep in man's consc ousness'.

1 C. Gray. The Great Experiment.. London 1962/The Russ1an Expenmer>t mArt, London
197' J Bowt. The Sc'Ver Age. NewtonVIlle, 1979,1. Paperno & J. Grossman. Creanng Ltfe.
Stanford. 1994 2 N Lapsh1na, Mlf lskusstva. Moscow, 1977; Bowlt, S1lver Age. 3 B.W.
Kean. A// the Empty Palaces. London. 1983, N Dumova. Moskovske metsenaty (Moscow
Pauonsl, Moscow. 1992 3 H K Roethe', Kandinsky, NY 1979. C. Deroue: & J. Bo1sse. eds,
Kandinsky. Pans. 1985, L Z'1adova. MaleVJch, London, 1982; W 3eeren & J. Joosten, eds,
Malevich. Amsterdam-Lemngrao. 1988; L Zhadova. ed .. Tatlm, Lonoon, 1988; A Striga'ev
& J. Harten, Tatlm, Cologne. 1994 5 W Kandinsky, M. Sadler. tr . Concernmg the Spmtual
mArt, NY, 1977, pp 28-9 6 Derouet etc. Kandnsky, p. 72 7 V Marcade, Le Renouveau de
/'Art P1crural Russe. Pars. 1971, pp.149-52 8 Marcade. Renouveau. p.153; Derouet etc,
Kandinsky, p.72 9 Trudy Vseross1skogo s 'ezda khudozhniKov. Petrograd, 1914, vol.1,
pp.47-76 10 Ong1nally, M. Sadler. tr., The Art of Spmtual Harmony, London, 1914, later as
n.5; lui text. 0 dukhovnom v 1skussrve. NY. 1967; Moscow, 1992 11 T Andersen,
ed., K.S. MaleVJch. Essays on Art. Copenhagen-London, 1968-9 12 M Reading, P. Coe,
Lubetkin and Tecton, London, 1993. p.126 13 V ' Art1san and Prophet', m A.
Calnek, ed., The Great Utop1a, NY, 1992, pp.25-37 14 J Sharp, 'Cn\ical reception of 0.10',
1n b1d, pp.38-52 15 Rak1!1n, 'Artisan', p.26 16 VE Tat1in, Petrograd. 1915 17 Ot kubizma
i futunzma k supremat1zmu. Novyi zhivop1sny1 realizm, Moscow, 1916 (three ed t1ons had
slightly dffering t1tles). Full text n J Bowlt. ed, Russ1an Art of the Avant-Garde. NY. 1976.
pp 116-35 18 E. Kovtun 'K.S Malev1ch. P1s'ma k M V. Matiushinu'. Ezhegodnik
Pushklnskogo doma. 1974, Lenmgrad. 1976, pp.177-94; cf Zhadova, Malev1ch, p.122.
VASILI KANDINSKV
16
----
ON THE SPIRITUAL IN ART, Munich-St Petersburg, 1911
FROM CHAPTER VI: COLOUR AND FORM
For all the diversity which form may adopt, it can never
break through two external limits: either it aims through
the act of delimiting to distinguish a certain material
subject from the plane, or the form remains abstract
labstrakmot), in that it does not signify any real subject
matter, but is a purely abstract being. The square, circle,
triangle, rhombus, trapezium are such purely abstract
beings which have their own life, their influence and
their activity, as are countless other forms too complex
for mathematical description. All these forms are citi-
zens with equal rights in the kingdom of the abstract. "
In our time the artist cannot manage just with
purely abstract forms. They are too imprecise for him.
To limit himself only to the imprecise would mean to
exclude many possibilities, to exclude what is purely
human and reduce his means of expression to poverty.
Abandonment of subj ect-matter and exclusion of the
third dimension ... were the first steps into the realm of
the abstract in painting. Modelling was discarded. The
real subject matter underwent a shift (sdvig) to the abst-
ract. It was progress but soon brought a certain 'attach-
ment' (pnkrepleme) to the plane of the canvas itself
which gave the painting a new materiality (matenal'nyi
pnzvukhl and then in turn limited possibilities.
The aspirat1on to get free of this limitedness, in
connection with the aspiration to a new kind of
composition, must naturally lead to rejecting the single
plane .... Thus from a composition with flat triangles
arose a composition of triangles standing sculpturally
[lit. plastically), triangles in three dimensions, that is
pyramids. which is Cubism.
FROM CHAPTER VII: THEORY
Art stands higher than nature; that is no new discovery.
What matters for us is to discover the state of this
principle today, and where it will get us to tomorrow ...
Natural forms establish a boundary that often obstructs
the manifestation. These boundaries are redrawn and
replaced by the objective elements of fonm, by construc-
tion for the purpose of composition lkonsuukts., v tse/akh
kompozttSII]. This explains the aspiration already clear
today, to discover the constructive forms of the epoch_
Thus Cubism shows how often natural form finds itself
subordinated to constructive purposes, and what
obstacles such forms can create. Today in general we
find naked construction applied. However if we think
about the definition of modern harmony given in this
book, then we shall find the spirit of the age in the field
of constructions too. And finally this relationship can be
expressed in mathematical form .... Number is the
ultimate abstract expression in every art.
ma
tefeVISI
Russ1a1
or rathe
was
of 1ts I
socaf
commu
1mages
Muc
I
would a
Sov1et g
I
how eve
later de
formulat
or of app
The
new rela,
a fnppe
after the 1
energet1c
new con

I
undertiJe
RIGINS
!SV'vama. 1983. pp 78-115 13 'Osnovy DOstroerila
lstJcheskOt estettki' (foundations for bu:Jding a theory
rationalist aesthetics) 1920, 10 lzvest.Jra ASNOVA
>vsky, 'lz protokolov', m Barkhtn. ed, Mastera. vor.l
1928, Ezhegodmk literatwy i ISkusstva na 1929 goa
Moscow, 1929. pp.552-5, epubl. in Khaza'lova,
; nationalisation was effected by the Bolshevik
!eon the Iandi, dated 26 Oct 1917 17 N. Ladovsky,
tektury- v postanovk1 voprosa' (A psycho-
vay of postng the question), lrveswa AS NOVA. p. 7
md his contnbuttons to applied psychology see.
18 G. Kruttkov, 'Arkh1tekturnaia nauchno-
urnogo fakul'teta Moskovskogo Vkhu:ema' (The
chttecture faculty at Moscow Vkhutetnl, Stro1tel'nata
or other sources on the laboratory see Senkev, tch.
<y, Grazhdanskaia arkhltektura !Civil Archtlecture)
Jjects were pub11shed in the only issue of lrvestlla
Sttzky in 1926 21 M Ginzburg, 'ltog11 perspektNy'
no 4/5. pp.112-118. For an English translation see
d FunctiOn. A sourcebook 1890-1939. Londor,
Jnsuuktivzm v arkh1tekture' (Constructtv,sm ,r
3 A Gan. Konstru.ktivizm. Tver 1922 p.55 24 \-I
Moscow. 1924, pp 18-29; 127-34 25M G'nzburg.
(Aims m contemporary architecture),
urg, 'Konstruknvizm lea( metod laboratorno
as a method of laboratory and teaching work). SA.
4ovye metody myshlentia' (New
1926. no.1, pp.l-4 See 'ull text 1n Document to
arkhltektura. pp.27-9 29 ibtd. p.5 30 G1nzburg.
n 5 below. 31 ibtd 32 Nakaz arkhte<turnogo
lovaa Akadem1ia' (lnstrucltOns for archttectura
ew Academy studtos). 1923. 1n I Kokl11alct & A
11'n1kov, Moscow. 1985, pp 93-4 33 Arkhttektura
:ecture: a lecture to the Htgher Techntca College
& Stngaiev, eds . Mel'nikov, pp.98-9 34 'Sut'
a series of my projects). 1965, 1n Kokkmak &
K. Mel'nikov, ' Oformlente proekta', Arkhttekcura
na kafedre arkhttektury V-1. A, 14 aprelta
O..rchotecture. Academy of Mtlttary Engtneers, 14
vfel'nikov. pp.1 02-3 37 Lektsionny1 obzor V-1
:ure dept 1n Academy of Mthtary Engineers, Nov
11kov, pp.109-110 38 'Ru<opts I. A. Golosova: II
turnot massy' tManuscnpt by I A. Golosov 2
ectural mass), in S. 0. Khan-Magomedov. 1/'ia
fr001 tnts appear n English 1n his PJ()()eers. p.562
ha. pp.95-7 42 A. G. Barkhina, G. B. Barkhm,
Newman. eds. Defmmg Modem An selected
6. p.116 H-R. Hitchcock and P. Johnson, The
11 of the 1932 edttlon. The singe detail1mage
ch1tects IN1kolatev & Ftssenko) Electro-Pnystca
tical and curved elements used with funcMna
A. Kuznetsov, Arkhttektura i zhelezobeton'
tchu (The Architect), 1915, nos. 19, 20; republ.
46 A. Kuznetsov. 'Arkhttektura 1 strOJtel'nata
1re and build'ng technology 1n the 19th and early
ademy of Architecture), 1934, no 1-2. pp.51-2;
!14-16 47 A. Shchusev. 'Lektsua: strottel'stvo
populated places), Paper to the Ftrst AII-Un1on
uctton, Moscow, 6-15 May 1926, m Barkhm.
;ev 'Lektsua ekonomtka, tekhnika i arkhttektura'
cture) to 1926 Congress as note 47, 1n Barkhin,
27 no.2, p.49 50 Fomtn, 'Tvorcheskte putt
ogo nasledstva' (The creawe directton of sovret
tural hentagel. Arkhltekrura SSSR. 1933, no.3-
l, voll pp.129-32 51 N Markovn.kov.
1rnall, Strottel'nala promyshlennost: 1926. no 9.
.ntenstvnaia zasuoikar (Extenstve or inter:sive
e also Chapter 11 below
()OC
Doc
3
VLADIMIR TATLIN, with TEVEL SHAPIRO,
IOSIF MEERZON, PAVEL VINOGRADOV
THE WORK AHEAD OF US
Moscow, 31 December 1920
The foundations on which fine art stood - the
foundations of our craft- were all split apart, and all
pairting's connections with sculpture and architecture
had got lost. The consequence of this was individualism,
i.e. art had come to express only personal habits and
tastes. and when artists addressed themselves spec-
ifically to material, they made a kind of eccentricity out
of it in relation to one or other branch of fine art. Thus
in the best cases artists embellished the walls of private
marsions (individual family nests) and bequeathed us
a series of 'laroslavl stations' and a diversity of now
ludicrous forms.
What happened in '17 in social respects had already
taken place in our art in 1914, when we adopted
material, volume and construction (konstrukrsiial' as the
foundation of our work.
Having declared our distrust of the eye, we place
the eye under the control of the tactile, of touch.
In Moscow in 1915 there was an exhibition of
material laboratory examples lmaterialnykh laborator-
nykh obraztsovl, an exhibition of reliefs and counter-
reliefs.
A further exhibition in 1917 showed a series of
'selections of materials' involving more complex
investigations and manifestations both of material as
such, and of what follows from its use (ego sledstviia),
that is of movement, tension, and the relationships
between them.
NIKOLAI LADOVSKY
This investigation of material, volume and const-
ruction made it possible for us to move on, in 1918, to
start creating selections of materials as an artistic form,
using steel and glass, as the materials of a modern
classicism, equal in their rigour (strogostl to the marble
of the past.
In this way there now emerges the possibility of
combining purely artistic forms with utilitarian
intentions. An example of this is the project for a mon-
ument to the Third Communist International exhibited
here at the Eighth Congress.
The fruits of this work are samples of something
new (obraztsyj which stimulate us to inventions in the
work of creating a new world, and which call upon us to
take control of the (physical) forms of the new way of
life (formy novogo byta).
Moscow, 31 December 1920.
T111s statement was published in the 1 January 1921 issue of the
daily bulletin of the Eighth Congress of Soviets where the Tower
model was exhibited. see n.2 opposite. The relatively unknown
Pavel Vinogr11dov took no part in building the model, just helped
re-erect it in the House of Unions {former House of the Nobility)
for the Moscow show. The artists and students of Pegoskhum
(Free Studios. see chapter 9) who helped the other three authors
make the model were Terletsky, Dormidontov, Stakanov,
Khapaev and two girls, Pchelnikova and Dymshits Tolstai11.
Fedor Shekhtel, laroslav/ Statoon, Moscow. 1902; the Moderne
approach to creating 'asynthesrs of the arts' which Tat/in and
colleagues dismiss here as 'ludicrous'.
Opening spread to Chapter V 'Constructivism', in Moisei
Ginzburg's Style and Epoch, 1924, juxtaposing Tat/in's
Monument, and Buffalo grain silos derived from Corbus1er's
l'Esprit Nouveau,as sources of 'the constructive style'
ON THE PROGRAMME OF THE WORKING GROUP OF ARCHITECTS IN INKHUK
From protocols of their meetings (26/27 March 1921 et al)
The task of our Working Group is to work in the
direction of elucidating the theory of architecture. Our
productivity will depend on the very rapid working out
of our programme, on clarification of the investigative
methods to be used and identification of the materials
whtch we have at our disposal to supplement the work.
The work plan can be roughly broken down into three
basic po 1 nts:
1: the assembly of appropriate theoretical studies
and the existing theories of architecture of all
theoreticians, 2: the extraction and assembly of relevant
material from these theoret ical t reatises and from
research achieved within other branches of art, which
have a bearing on architecture, and 3: the exposition of
our own theoretical attitudes to architecture.
The end-product of this work must be the compiling
of an illustrated dictionary that defines precisely the
terminology and definitions of architecture as an art, of
its individual attributes, properties etc, and the
relationships between architecture and the other arts.
The three elements of the work plan relate, in the first
case, to the past, to 'what has been done'; in the second,
to the present, and 'what we are doing', and in the
third, to 'what must be done' in the future, in the field
of theoretical foundations for architecture. The
commisston which it will be necessary to set up for
working out the detailed programme must develop the
foundations for the programme we have proposed ....
The task we are facing involves the study of the
elements, attributes and properties of architecture. This
is where we must begin the investigative work, on the
one hand, with the absolutely central properties of
architecture, and on the other, we must investigate
those of its properties which, because they have a
general family relationship to it, have been studied
already by other Groups within the Institute [i.e. within
lnkhuk, CCI. Top of their agendas right now is the
investigation of construction and composition. For
architecture, the most important elements are: space,
construction, form, and its other elements follow those.
Here in condensed form is the schema for the
programme. But certainly we have no need to confine
ourselves dogmatically. For example, results emerging
from investigations of questions that are not currently
programmed might permit us to deviate from exam-
ining the questions in this order. The theory of archit-
ecture is an academic lnauchnyi, literally 'scientific')
field. And it would seem to require first of all a literary
exposition in order to establish its concepts and
terminologies with the greatest possible precision. But
we must not eliminate graphic representation as one of
the means of demonstration and proof ....
It astonishes me that there can still arise amongst
Group members questions such as Why is space to
be studied as a f i rst priority?'. In such a case would it
not be better to turn to our relatives in art, where they
will maybe explain to you 'why'?. Spatiality belongs
exclusively to architecture, but archi tecture itself does
not concern itself with investigating it, and uses it very
badly. The dancer or the actor also work in space. It is
from the theorists of these arts t hat we must work on
questions of space and movement ...
Our colleague Petrov has touched upon two
categories of question: firstly, the question of perception
(of architectural action). But this is a field of psychology
and philosophy. We cannot set up an sufficiently broad
investigation of the question of perception, since we are
not adequately competent in the question of
psychology. We shall have to limit ourselves here to
axiomatic givens, posited by the specialists on these
questions.
Secondly, Petrov, in essence, is carrying out himself
a bald classification of the properties of architecture, not
according to its real characteristics, but according to
purely accidental symptomatic features such as
columns, bases, entablatures etc. But what is important
in Petrov's words is the aspect of perception he has
yet again underlined and his reference to the University
as an architectural product. Would not an examination
of this from the point of view of its organic and
mechanical characteristics be an examination by
analogy? But questions of analogy are questions of
aesthetics. There what is being examined is a rein
carnation of the individual: where for example a stone
lying down calls forth, by analogy, a feeling of rest,
and a standing stone, an aspiration upwards, and so on.
Restlessness, peace, aspiration and so on are questions
belonging to a special science, but not to architectural
research. The latter already now gives, albeit temp-
orarily, scientificly founded truths, and not analogous
comparisons ...
We are not rejecting psychology, but we say that we
are not specialists in it. The same is true with math-
ematics. But there is a field where we are Pythagorases,
and that is architecture. And here we need defined
premises to build on. These premises, even if only for
today, must be immovable, otherwise proof is doomed
to rapid ruin. Such premises, and directives of a general
type, are what our programme provides.
t'r .. .--_,:.c
Ladovsky, project for a commual house, 1920; section
97
Doc.
4
Doc.
5
98
4 : WHAT SHOULD A SOVIET ARCHITECTURE BE7 PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY AND ITS ORIGINS
ALEXANDER VESNIN
CREDO
Manuscript notes of a personal position statement to lnkhuk,
in the context of the 'art into production' debates, April 1922
The tempo of modernity is fast, dynamic, and its rhythm
is clear, precise, straight-lined, mathematical. Material
and suitability to purpose (tselesoobraznos() determine
the structure (stroll of an object created by the contem-
porary artist.
It is of no consequence whether the object serves a
purpose and is utilitarian, like engineering structures
and domestic artefacts, or only serves a purpose as
laboratory work for the tasks of solving the problems of
new contemporary forms. Each of these kinds of object
created by the contemporary artist must enter into life
as an active force, organising the consciousness of the
individual, operating upon him psycho-physiologically,
arousing an upsurge of energetic activity in him.
It is clear that objects created by the contemporary
artist must be pure constructions (konstruktsill without
the superfluous ballast of representing anything
(izobrazitelnostll. structured on the principle of the
straight and the geometrically curved and on the
principle of economy with maximum effective action.
Since the constructing (konstruirovanie) of any kind
of object consists of a precise combination of basic
plastic elements, such as material, colour, line, plane
and surface treatment, the study of these elements
must be given the first priority by the artist.
I regard all these elements as materialised energies,
as possessing dynamic properties such as movement,
tension, weight, velocity, which must be regulated to
some purpose by the artist.
which operates in and is necessary to the system of
which it is part, and neither form nor material can be
arbitrarily changed without damaging the operation of
the entire system, so also in objects created by an artist,
each element is a materialised force and cannot be
arbitrarily thrown out or changed without destroying the
effective operation ( tselesoobraznoe deistvie) of the
whole system, i.e., of the object.
The contemporary engineer has creaied objects of
genius: the bridge, the the aeroplane,
the crane.
The contemporary artist must create objects equal
to these in the power, tension and potential energy of
their psycho-physiological infiLence on the conscious-
ness of the individual, and in the strength of their
organising principle.
Popova, 'Construction with white half-moon', 1920, exhibited
in the Erste Russische Kunstaussteflung, Berlin, 1922
In just the same way as every part of a machine is
a force materialised in appropriate form and material,
Vesnin /centre} and Popovs {hat with pompom} Mnth Vkhutemas students. 1922: /eh. Grushchenko; frontleh, Komarova, eta/
NIKOLAI LADOVSKY
THE PSYCHOTECHNICAL LABORATORY OF ARCHITECTURE:
POSING THE PROBLEM
29 March 1926, from lzvestiia ASNOVA, no.1, 1926
Even if only to an elementary level, the architect must
be familiar with the laws of perception and the means
by which it operates, in order to utilise in his practice
everything that contemporary scientific knowledge can
offer. Amongst the sciences which are facilitating the
development of architecture, a very serious place must
be given to the still young science of psychotechnics.
This subsidiary science can undoubtedly look forward
to a very large field of activity. It has already achieved
recognition for itself in many fields of technology. Its
influence becomes daily greater, as a result of the fact
that it is throwing bridges between so called pure
science and practical technology.
Amongst people of affairs the first to have recourse
to it were representatives of the vast industrial and
commercial companies of America, for the selection
of employees, then business people used it in the
advertising field, and then teachers used it in selecting
and determining the capabilities of their students. At the
present time there is no field of human activity to which
psychotechnics is not making a claim.
In the field of aesthetics the well known psych-
ologist Hugo Munsterberg works year by year in his
Harvard laboratory. The following studies which have a
relationship to architecture have been carried out there:
Equilibrium of simple forms (Pierce); Unequal div1sion
IAnquier); Symmetry (Puffer); Repetition of spatial forms
!Rowland); Vertical division (Davis) and so on.
The work which I, and subsequently also my
colleagues, have carried out in the field of architecture
in Vkhutemas since 1920, verified by the methods of
psychotechnics, will help in creating a scientific
statement of architectural principles on the basis of
rationalist aesthetics.
The most correct approach to solving this question
wi:l be the organising of a psychotechnical laboratory
for the study of questions of rational architecture
through Asnova. To affirm the timeliness of a posing of
this problem I can do no better than quote the words of
Munsterberg;
'Psychotechnics cannot create artists ... but it can
give them all a solid starting point from which they
can achieve the aims to which they aspire by the most
scientifically correct means, and by the same token
avoid certain dangers. Through developing psycho-
technics across the broadest front, it can in future pose
its demands to the composers of art, whilst always
affirming that genius will discover by unconscious
means those things which science works out with great
difficulty.'
Quite apart from the purely scientific Importance
which the work of such a laboratory can have, its
activities must also have a practical importance in
everyday architectural practice.
Such a laboratory could eliminate so many of those
misunderstandings which arise in the evaluation of
qualitat1ve aspects of architectural work as a result of
the absence of any agreed terminology even amongst
specialists. It is only too well known that chance and
accident predominate in the evaluation of competition
projects. There can be no elimination of the pass1on
that mutual incomprehension causes between teachers
and pupils until the laboratory's work has been set up
properly. In these and other cases the psychotechrtcal
laboratory can play a large supplementary role.
On the resulting laboratory. see Document 29 pp. 184-5.
Vladimir Krinsky, Project for a Temple of Intercourse berw
Nations, done m Zhivskulp!arkh, 7979
5: CONS
RODCHE
METHOD'
Constructivism
various 'nterpretations. By adm
presented as a philosophy predo
architecture as a social catalyst, w
'social construction'. It has been pr
form1ng role of structural technolc
been presented as an obsession w
as an overwhelming concern for fo1
No wonder the literature and ad1
confused. How can a small corpus
such divers1ty?
The answer is s1mple Like a
Constructivist group were obsess!\
of the architectural problem. They v
though they were by poverty of re
were unquestionably amongst the
anywhere. Not for nothing did ever
times, at the centre of Sov1et ar<
through till death or old age. Unlil
prepared to leave questions of the i
dtmensions of the architectural pre
ln the words of Len1n quoted
order really to know an object, it
aspects of 1t: all1ts mternal and ex
today could loosely be called a '!
more general Russtan term, a kc
destgn problem as an integrated co
problem as a whole. 'Form is a tunc
'whtch has always to be evaluated <
changtng preconditions of the ton
wr..ch is not so far from thetr OVI
en:1re decis1on space surrounding
There ts a direct genenc relat101
also a crucial d1fference from most
about bu1lt-enwonmental problerr
not nih1Lst in the face of architE
del.neatton and organisation of