1

Conferència d’ Introducció
Introductory Lecture
Conférence d’Introduction
Conferencia de Introducción

© los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998. Quedan rigurosamente prohibidas, sin la autorización escrita de los titulares del "copyright", bajo las sanciones establecidas en las
leyes, la reproducción total o parcial de esta obra por cualquier medio o procedimiento, comprendidos la reprografía y el tratamiento informático, y la distribución de
ejemplares de ella mediante alquiler o préstamo públicos, así como la exportación e importación de ejemplares para su distribución y venta fuera del ámbito de la Unión
Europea.
Semiotics of Architecture, semiotics of space - looking back and ahead 3

Semiotics of architecture, semiotics of space -

looking back and ahead

Martin Krampen, Ph.D., Prof. Emeritus

The 10th Symposium of the International Association for the Semiotics of Space taking place 1996
in Barcelona is a good occasion to look back at the 40 year history of our field and to dare a look
foreward at the future.

Looking at the past

How did Semiotics of Space come about? As a rule, semiotic systems emerge, develop and change
in response to external pressures. The semiotic system of traffic signs, for example, was born
shortly after the birth of the automobile and developed and changed in response to the development
of automobile traffic. The modern kind of semiotics of architecture and, more generally, of space is
a result of various pressures appearing after the end of World War 2, among them the beginning of
urban sprawl in various countries of Europe, especially in Italy. Attempts to tame the architectural
monster by pressing it into the mold of linguistic ordering systems date back to the early 50th when
first linguistic analogies of architecture were fabricated at the School of architecture in Florence
(Gamberini 1953, Koenig 1964). By coincidence, Umberto Eco was a guest lecturer at that school
during the period.

The more general «Semiotics of Space» developed after «Semiotics of Architecture» in the early
70th in Paris (e.g. Hammad 1973) under the influence of Greimas (1979). In 1971 and 1973 at the
Centro Internazionale di Semiotica e Linguistica di Urbino first international meetings on semiotics
of architecture were held in which Umberto Eco and others presented their studies. Seminal writings
on Semiotics of Architecture were chapters in Eco´s (1968) «Struttura Assente» and, the book
«Meaning in Architecture» edited by Charles Jencks and George Baird (1969), reflecting an
Anglosaxon position on the topic.

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

4 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

1972, at an important meeting in Casteldefels near Barcelona some of the Latin and Anglosaxon
founding fathers of Semiotics of Architecture and Semiotics of Space were brought together. Also,
for the first time, the empirical research on spatial meaning was represented there (Canter & Tagg
1974). Promoters of this type of research called «Environmental Psychology» gathered 1969 in a
first conference on «Architectural Psychology» at the University of Strathclyde in Dalanhui, England
(Canter 1970). British and American psychologists and architects organized later in the «International
Asssociation for the Study of People and their Physical Surroundings» (IAPS). Thanks to the
international connections and organisational talent of Josep Muntanola Thornberg, Barcelona too,
has seen a meeting of this organization in 1982.
Meetings at the University of Ulm (1972) and at the École d´Architecture in the University of
Geneva preceded the first Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies (IASS)
1974 in Milano. There I presented state of the art reports on Semiotics of Objects and Semiotics of
Architecture (Krampen 1979).
If we consider the period up to 1974 as the beginning phase of Semiotics of Space it is fair to
confess critically that this period fed almost exclusively on linguistic analogy. Architectural or other
spatial elements were likened to linguistic ones like phonemes and morphemes and were said to be
combined according to syntactic rules. Barthes (1967) maintained that the city was a text. The
fallacy was that while architecture could well be regarded as a sign system not all sign systems are
languages as Hjelmslev would like to make us believe. It may also be true that all sign systems
function on the basis of generative or syntactic devices but not all semiotic products of generative
or syntactic devices are languages. The early beginnings of of Semiotics of Space were characterized
by the enthusiasm of the scientists and professionals involved in the discovery of a new approach
to theory and practice of space but also by mistakes which are easily made in an enthousiastic
frame of mind.
It is the merit of the late Luis J. Prieto (1973,1975) to have put semiotics in general and semiotics
of space in special from the head on the feet. He developed a model of the instrumental act of
which the linguistic act is only a special case. Operations are executed with a given tool . The set
of operations which may be executed by a tool is called by Prieto the utility of that tool. Different
tools do not possess the same utility, but all variants of a given tool, take for example corkscrews
employing different ways of getting a cork out of a bottle, belong to a set which Prieto calls the
operant. Operant and utility in coordination form an instrument. Now it becomes obvious, that the
linguistic model is nothing but a special case of an instrumental act: The signified in the linguistic
model correspons to utility, the signifier to operant, the signal to the tool. Signifier and signified form
together a sign which corresponds to an instrument. The concrete transmission of a message by
means of signals is nothing but a particular way of executing a concrete operation by means of a
tool. Communication is one important set of operations within a universe of other human operations
such as housing, nurishing, locomoting etc.- all performed by different instrument systems.
Another Argentinian by birth, Tomàs Maldonado (1973), warned similarly against the idealistic
fallacy of reducing objects of material culture like buildings and cities to signs while forgetting that
signs are material objects too. He used to characterize this fallacy by saying: «Let´s talk about rice
and not about the price of the rice.»

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Semiotics of Architecture, semiotics of space - looking back and ahead 5

In the development that followed Semiotics of Space profitted more from a crossfertilization with
the social sciences. From a sociological perspective, semioticians like Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos
and Marc Gottdiener began to analyze such complex phenomena as cities and even regions. Also,
the influence of Greimas and his Hjelmslevian model grew further by a number of convincing
analyses of architectural objects and places culminating in such works as Boudon´s (1973)
«Recherches sémiotiques sur le lieu».
In 1985 began with a symposium on the Greec isle of Andros a series of conferences on the
semiotics of space of which this meeting in Barcelona is the 10th. The Andros symposium tried to
cover the theme «Space and Semiotics: From building to city and region». The results of this
meeting were published byAlexandros Ph. Lagopoulos (1985) as a special issue of the journal
Espaces et Sociétés.
In 1987 the Andros group, increased by other researchers interested in Semiotics of space, met in
Urbino reporting on developments in the field of «Aesthetics and Semiotics of Space».
In the following year 1988 the group increased again by a number of British psychologists and
others who discussed the contribution ecological psychology could make to semiotics of space. The
key term of the discussion was «affordance», a concept proposed by James J. Gibson (1979) to
describe the function objects may have for an organism, of which spatial configurations are a
special class. Unfortunately I never was able to find a publisher for the proceedings of this very
fruitful symposium.
The «International Association for the Semiotics of Space» (IASSP) or «Association Internationale
de Semiotique de l´Espace» (AISE) was founded with myselfas a president, Geoffrey Broadbent
(England) and William Widdowson (USA) asVice Presidents, and Manar Hammad as Secretary
General during that meeting.
The next meeting took place within the framework of the Congress of the IASS held 1989 in
Barcelona and Perpignan.
By far the largest and most important symposium of the IASSP/AISE was the one held in Geneva
organized by Prof. Pierre Pellegrino under the heading «Culture architecturale, culture urbaine».
The contributions of more than 50 authors to this conference were published by Pierre Pellegrino
(1994) in the splendid volume «Figures architecturales, formes urbaines».
The next conference took place in 1991 at the Aristoteles University of Thessaloniki. It was followed
in 1992 by a double Conference in Berlin combining a congress of the International Association for
Empirical Aesthetics (IAEA) with that of the IASSP/AISE. The discussions this time turned around
the definition of semiotics and of space. There were clear differences among the participants as
far as the definition of semiotics is concerned: For semioticians around Thomas A. Sebeok the
whole of nature is perfused with semioses. For others semiotics is the science of human
communication by signs. The discussion around the meaning of space resulted in different positions
too - space was considered, in the Hjelmslevian tradition, a segmentation of unordered matter by
some, as a physical support for activities of organisms by others.

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

6 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

At the Berlin Congress Pierre Pellegrino was elected president, Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos and
Shelagh Lindsay Vice Presidents of the IASSP/AISE. Luis J. Prieto, Thomas A. Sebeok and
myself were nominated Honorary Presidents.
Next, the large 1994 Congress of the IASS in Berkeley offered again an occasion for a special
symposium of the IASSP/AISE.
Finally, the meeting of the IASSP/AISE in Saint Petersburg was held last year as had been decided
1992 in Berlin. Again it was the special merit of Pierre Pellegrino to find the financial and
organizational support for this meeting which allowed for many of us to meet for the first time with
colleagues from Russia. And I will never forget some of the differences given by their particular
situation such as the foundation of completely new cities and the variability of their acceptance by
the different generations settling in them.
To sum up the activities of the IASSP/AISE - we have dealt with the semiotics of space under
many forms of its manifestation. We have dealt with the meaning of large extensions from the
region to the city, we have dealt with the meaning of building spaces (e.g. rooms) and particular
works of architecture, we have dealt with the meaning of special spaces such as museums. At the
same time we have also dealt with «written spaces» (writings on space) and with the mind of
planners (Ostrowetzky 1985), and we have begun in Geneva to deal with virtual spaces. We have
dealt with various aspects of these different manifestantions of space - with the aesthetic aspects,
with the generative aspects, and we have dealt, last not least, with the didactics of spatial design.

A look into the future

A look into the future of research in the semiotics of space must be necessarily short given our
limited prophetic capacities. Let me give you rather some desiderata, some puzzles to be solved
which result from my own curiosity.
A fundamental question I would like to be answered in a clear way is the question of the social and
scientific function of Semiotics of Space in the 3rd milennium. If one of the most important issues
bringing about semiotics of space was urban sprawl 50 years ago, what does the quest for the
sense of space mean with respect to different scenarios (Lutz 1984) for the future we are about to
enter?
If we assume the scenario of «Computopia» how does it influence our conception of the meaning
of space? What does the simulation of virtual spaces mean for the semiotics of space? If we
assume the scenario of «Space Colony» what would be the consequences for a semiotics of «Outer
Space». If we assume the scenario of «Ecotopia» what would be a viable extension of a semiotics
of space into the direction of ecology. I think that Gibson has shown us the direction in which to look
for an ecological approach to the semiotics of space. The «Multicultural Society» taking shape
around us needs also a particular approach to semiotics of space.

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Semiotics of Architecture, semiotics of space - looking back and ahead 7

New spiritualistic movements like Findhorn will want to imbue space with new meaning.
A new unhampered form of capitalism needs a new semiotic approach. But above all, the «Gaia-
Hypothesis» according to which our planet with or withbout future humanity is the result of an
ongoing autopoetic process, needs a semiotic interpretation.
Apart from the clarification of the function of the semiotics of space in the 3rd millenium I would
like to reach a clear decision as to what semiotics really is - only a science of human communication
by signs or a larger discipline including the study of semioses in the whole environment and among
all organisms. Prieto with his distinction between semiotics of information and semiotics of
communication has pointed in the right direction: Semioticians have dealt very well with semiotics
of communication, with the description how first hand experience is passed on to others by means
of signs to become second hand experience. But the semiotics of information by which the process
of extracting first hand information from the environment is described has not been equally as well
developed. With respect to space this means that we need a treatment of space as first hand
experience - perhaps in a more phenomenological fashion?
I would like to reach a convention on what we mean by space. This requires considerable work on
what we have already declared space to be. It requires also a fresh look at the models we have
used so far - including the very fruitful model of Hjelmslev. I remind you that Gibson advocates to
avoid the term space alltogether and to substitute it by such terms as surface configuration or
niche.
With this research agenda I think we can look foreward to a future in which semiotics is no longer
confused with linguistics and space no longer with mystery.

Summary
Semiotics of architecture (and later semiotics of space) developed as an attempt to find an answer
to urban sprawl in the fiftieth. At the beginning it fed almost exclusively on linguistic analogies
(e.g.»The city is a text», etc.). The late Luis J. Prieto showed, however, that communication by
language is only one important set of operations within a set of many others such as housing,
nurishing, locomoting and that a semiotic of space had to be built on a general instrumental model.
Subsequently semiotics of space profitted more from crossfertilization with the social sciences. In
1985 a series of international symposia began, culminating in the 1988 foundation of the «International
Association for the Semiotics of Space» (IASSP) or, in the French designation, «Association
Internationale de Semiotique de l ´Éspace» (AISE). The IASSP/AISE held many meetings of
which proceedings were published. Past work of the semiotics of space has dealt with the meaning
of large extension from the region to the city, with the meaning of architecture and special spaces
(e.g. museums). A desirable research agenda for the future would have to answer the question of
the function of semiotics in the 3rd milennium, with the question of what semiotics is beyond a
science of human communication and with a semiotic definition of space.

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

8 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

References

Boudon, P. «Recherches semiotiques sur le lieu», Semiotica 7, 189-225, 1973.

Canter, D., Ed, Architectural psychology. London: RIBA publications, 1970.
Canter, D. & Tagg, S. «Classificatión empírica de los aspectos del edificio y de sus atributos.» In: Arquitec-
tura, Historia y Teoria de los Signos. Ed. T. Llorens.Barcelona: La Gaya Sciencia, 1974.
Eco, U. La struttura assente. Milano: Bompiani, 1968.
Gamberini, J. Per una analisi degli elementi dell´architettura. Firenze: Editrice Universitaria, 1953.
Gibson, J. J. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Greimas, A. (1979): Sémiotique de l´espace. Paris: Editions Denoel/Gonthier, 1979.
Hammad, M. Semiotique de l´espace. Paris: Publications du Groupe 107, 1973.
Jencks, Ch. & Baird, G., Eds. Meaning in architecture. London: Cresset Press, 1979.
Koenig, G.K. Analisi del linguaggio architettonico. Firenze: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1964.
Krampen, M. Survey on current work in semiology of architecture. In: A Semiotic Landscape. Seymor Chatman,
Umberto Eco & Jean-Marie Klinkenberg (eds.). The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton Publishers, 169-194,
1979.
Lagopoulos A.Ph., ed. Éspace et Semiotique. Espaces et Sociétés, 47, 1985.
Lutz, R. Die sanfte Wende. Muenchen: Koesel, 1984.
Maldonado, T. Objekte, Waren, Bedürfnisse. In: Semiologie und Theorie der Architektur. Bericht über ein
Seminar an der École d´Architecture, Université de Genève. Ed. Martin Krampen. (mimeographed), 1973,
Ostrowetzki, S. Recherches sur l´imaginaire bâtisseur. Espaces et Sociétés 45, 9-28, 1985.
Pellegrino, P., Ed. Figures architecturales, formes urbaines, Genève: Anthropos,1994.
Prieto, L.J. Signe et instrument. In: Littérature, histoire, linguistique. Receul d´études offert a Bernard
Gagnebin. Lausanne: Éditions l´Age d´Homme, 1973.
Prieto, L.J. Pertinence et pratique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1975.

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

 9

Conclusions
Conclusions
Conclusions
Conclusiones

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

10 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Semiotics of space: The state of the art 11

Semiotics of space: The state of the art

Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Vice-president IASS

It is an acknowledged fact that there has recently been an impressive development in the institutional
presence of the semiotics of space. This field may be considered as epistemologically contested by
two different disciplines, semiotics on the one hand, and the spatial disciplines, such as architecture,
planning theory or human geography, on the other. Indeed, the semiotics of space may be constituted
either as a sub-discipline of semiotics, or as part of some spatial discipline, and this origin inescapably
leaves its imprint on the kind of semiotics of space produced. The bulk of the semiotics of space,
however, historically has come from inside architecture, a development parallel to the growth of
Anglo-American behavioral geography, a sub-field of human geography closely akin to the semiotics
of space which sprang from geography itself (unlike architectural psychology, the first stage of
environmental psychology, which derives from cognitive psychology).

The semiotics of space made a first and very early appearance in the fifties with the Italian semiotics
of architecture; a second start was made towards the end of the sixties. After a formative period
during the next fifteen years, due to a rather limited number of researchers, in which its scope
extended to also include urban and regional space, the semiotics of space began to expand. An
important moment for the self-awareness of the field was the Andros Symposium, organized in
1985 by the Laboratory for Space of the Hellenic Semiotic Society and held on a Greek island,
where a significant number of the semioticians of space had an opportunity for intensive discussions
on the foundations of the field. Since then the semioticians of space have contined meeting as an
autonomous group, and have created the International Association for the Semiotics of Space as an
institutional legitimization of the field.

It is within this tradition that we should situate the International Symposium on “Architecture and
Semiotics: Topogenesis”, held in Barcelona in 1996. The aim of the organizers of this Symposium
was “to build up an interdisciplinary dialogue between architecture, semiotics and social sciences”.
The term “topogenetics” is understood in the sense of “the study of human places to live in”, a
study with a double aspect, a theoretical and a practical one. It is the second aspect that the
organizers privileged, stating that “architecture and planning are looking for new ways of building
places”.

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

12 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

The Symposium attracted an important number of speakers, as has generally been the case in
recent years with similar manifestations around the semiotics of space; a fact showing the
development of the field, in which institutionalization undoubtedly played a role. The field is by now
established, the small initial group of researchers greatly augmented, and the subject-matter studied
multiplied. Manifestations such as the Barcelona Symposium corroborate these observations.
I have, however, the feeling that this formal and quantitative success is not equaled by a qualitative
advancement, which seems to be much slower. Some idea of the reason for this phenomenon and
possible remedies may be obtained from an overview of the papers of the present volume, which in
respect to the weaknesses of the field are no exception to the other gatherings of the semioticians
of space and to the current bibliography in circulation. We should take into consideration, on the
other hand, that this Symposium was unusual in that it attracted an exceptionally large number of
practicing architects, due to its combination with the Congress of the International Association of
Architects.

Some simple statistics concerning the Symposium may help us in detecting the problems faced by
our field. About two-thirds of the speakers were architects; the number of other disciplines present,
such as anthropology, was limited -which is not necessarily a negative indice- and the number of
speakers from each discipline limited to less than three. Environmental psychologists and human
geographers, the closest kin of the semioticians of space, were practically absent. The conclusions
to be drawn from these data are that: a. the semiotics of space is formed by architects (I do not
include in this term urban planners), b. it is -at least at the moment- of no interest to other discipli-
nes, and c. only rarely does it attract the interest of individual researchers from a few other disci-
plines.

This is not an unusual situation for a scientific field; in fact it is also characteristic of the above-
mentioned disciplines related to the semiotics of space. It is, however, by no means the only possibility,
witness the influence of sociology on human geography, of structural anthropology on the social
sciences and the humanities, and recently of literary theory on these same domains. What is most
unusual about our field is its epistemological, theoretical and methodological structuring. An insight
into this structuring may be gained again from the statistics of the Barcelona Symposium.

We may classify the papers presented into certain types, on the basis of their content and the
degree to which their authors make use of semiotic theories. With a fair approximation, we have
the following percentage of papers for each type:

1. Papers using semiotics, 33% (56%)

a. Theoretical papers,3% (6%)
b. Case studies with systematic use of semiotics, 13% (22%)
c. Papers combining theory (a) and case study (b), 5% (8%)
d. Papers using semiotics more loosely, 3% (6%)
e. Papers with a general semiotic perspective, 9% (14%)

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Semiotics of space: The state of the art 13

2. Papers with a semiotic awareness of a general nature, 15% (25%)

3. Papers of postmodern inspiration, 5% (8%)

4. Papers outside semiotics, 47%

a. Papers dealing with meaning from within a tradition other than semiotics, 7% (11%)
b. Papers non-pertinent to semiotics and signification, 40%

Let us assume that the plethora of papers not treating dealing with meaning (40%) is due to the
inflow of architects in Barcelona, though we should not ignore the phenomenon of the appearance
of such papers also in other semiotic gatherings. If we subtract these non-semiotic papers from our
statistics, something that embellishes the remaining image, we arrive at the percentages given
within parentheses. What the data say in this second case is that the semiotic papers (group 1) are
just above half of the papers (56%); if we focus on the semiotically more coherent among them
(1a, b, and c), these constitute only just over one-third of the papers (36%). One-fourth of the
papers is just semiotically inspired (group 2), and akin to this type are those of postmodern orientation
(group 3), which is poorly represented (8%) given the omnipresence of postmodernism in the social
sciences, the humanities and the arts.

If we focus on the systematically semiotic papers (36%), we observe that each of them follows a
different semiotic school (mainly Greimasian or Peircian), or borrows simultaneously from different
schools, or is generally attached to linguistics. Rarely do two papers belonging to the same semiotic
school follow a similar methodology. The conclusion we may draw is that, on the one hand, the
older generation of scholars in the field did not succeed in formulating a more generally accepted
paradigm, or in establishing the kind of scientific and critical communication with each other that
would allow them as a group to deliver a certain number of strong paradigms; and on the other, the
more recent contributors seem generally to be ignorant of previous work in the field. Thus, the field
acquires a kaleidoscopic pattern devoid of any structuring axes. And what is worst, many recent
contributors start all over from the beginning, where some of us were about 30 years ago.

One reason for this second situation is that the above-mentioned extension of the field took place
through the architects, and architects are so strongly oriented to practice that they do not have a
strong grasp of theory, let alone such a sophisticated theory as semiotics. The result of this is that
the semiotics of space has a poor and unconvincing presence on the international scene. This is
very regrettable, since the semiotics of space may offer an extremely valuable paradigm for spatial
analysis, much more sophisticated in matters of signification than the paradigm founding behavioral
geography and certainly clearer than the postmodern paradigm.

In order to achieve the position it deserves, the semiotics of space must be structured as a field.
This is the main way to convince other spatial analysts of its merits. Important theorists from other
disciplines working on spatial signification not only are unaware of the potentialities of the semiotics
of space, but indeed are hostile towards it. Admittedly, this is not only due to our weaknesses, but

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

14 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

also to the more general Anglo-American attitude to “orthodox” semiotic theory, the difficulties of
which to the Anglo-Saxon mind cause them virtually to identify semiotics with the occult. It is
strange, however, that the same people have embraced the fashionable post-structuralism -in reality
neo-structuralism- which should appear to them even more occult.

Occasions such as the semiotic congresses and the Barcelona Symposium are crucial for the
survival and establishment of the semiotics of space. They offer the framework for useful scientific
dynamics and strengthen the esprit de corps. But this corps must create a body of standard
knowledge, however provisional, if it is to continue a recognized life. The recipe is not very complex:
critical assimilation of significant work produced in the semiotics of space; cross-fertilization between
the different tendencies in the field; a deeper knowledge of general semiotic theory; involvement of
and exchange with general semioticians and social anthropologists. It will also need an institutional
and individual effort. Which is unquestionably worthwhile!

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

 15

Ponències
Papers
Rapports
Ponencias

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

16 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Méthode sémiotique de l’étude de la composition dans la formation primaire des architectes à l’école supérieure 17

Méthode sémiotique de l’étude de la composition dans la formation

primaire des architectes à l’école supérieure

Barabanov, Alexandre. Académie d’Etat d’Architecture et des Arts de l’Oural, Ekatérinbourg,

Russie

La formation des étudiants dans la composition architecturale est une partie importante de
l’enseignement à l’école d’architecture. Le trait caractéristique de l’enseignement à l’Académie
d’Etat d’Architecture et des Arts de l’Oural est un passage de la théorie syntaxique traditionnelle
de la composition architecturale à une étude de la composition aux niveaux sémantique et
pragmatique. Ces niveaux permettent d’établir une corrélation entre le contenu imagé de signe
sémantique de la composition architecturale et les principes essentiels et les moyens de l’organisation
de l’espace, ainsi que son interprétation faite par “un destinataire-consommateur”.

La particularité importante de l’enseignement de la composition architecturale à la 1e année

correspondant à la direction générale de conception de la formation primaire est une étude des
moyens, des particularités et des régularités de la composition architecturale, des procédés de
composition changeant dans le temps en corrélation étroite non seulement avec une fonction et un
développement des formes constructives, mais avec un milieu d’histoire culturelle de différentes
époques et des peuples compte tenu de leurs propriétés d’expression et d’image des formes
d’architecture.

En tant qu’étape primaire, l’enseignement à la 1e année est basé sur une étude des monuments
d’architecture mondiale et régionale, car l’étudiant habituellement ne peut pas encore se mettre à
ses propres projets architecturaux. Cela contrubue au développement de “l’acuité de la vision”, de
la mentalité d’image et d’espace, de la compréhension des régularités du langage artistique de la
forme architecturale, ainsi que ça aide au développement des capacités de composition. Le cours
intitulé “L’introduction dans le modelage de composition architecturale” sert à ce but.

Les parties théorique et pratique de ce cours visent une étude des régularités de l’organisation de
composition dans la forme architecturale en aspect sémiotique sur le fond de l’histoire culturelle
génétique. On donne ici des exemples de la construction théorique des modèles de composition de

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

18 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

milieu d’espace architectural de différentes époques d’histoire culturelle. La signification, le contenu

et le caractère imagé sont liés ici aux traits principaux de la conscience sociale de l’époque concrète
historique. On exprime ici les traits spécifiques et génétiques de l’étape historique concrète pris par
rapport à ceux d’autres périodes. La comparaison de ces traits en tant qu’attitude modelée, y
compris des aspects d’importance de la conscience sociale, donnent une possibilité d’envisager les
principes sémiotiques de l’organisation de la composition d’une forme architecturale de l’époque
définie. Une importance particuliére, dans ce cours, appartient à l’etude du sens symbolique des
formes architecturales, ainsi qu’à celle des aspects de deux niveaux du langage artistique, basés
sur la révélation des signes d’esthétique émotionnelle et de leurs “alphabets” et “dictionnaires”
comportant une base du système lignéaire de la forme architecturale, sur une étude de leurs sens et
de l’éventail des images-métaphores surgissant chez un consommateur pendant la perception de
cette forme (fig.1,2)

Le contenu du cours est présenté successivement chronologique à partir de l’époque préhistorique

jusq’aux tendences et courants dans l’architecture d’aujourd’hui et il comprend en dehors des
régularités de composition une étude des principes et des notions sémantiques de la constitution de
composition des formes dans l’architecture des époques différentes, à savoir:

- Le linga, le centre, l’axe du monde et la roue de temps (époque pré-historique),

- L’éternité et l’instant, le pouvoir absolu et la voie au ciel (Egypte an-cienne),
- L’échelle au ciel, le modèle de l’univers et le carré dynamique (Mésopo-tamie),
- L’harmonie cosmique, l’égalité et la liberté (Grèce ancienne),
- Le carré de stabilité, la symmetrie du pouvoir, l’homme-foule et l’homme-héros
(Rome ancienne),
- La croix et l’Ascension, l’unité de la pluralité et l’axe du monde (Go-thique),
- La terre et le ciel, le totem, Christ et ces apôtres, le prince et ses com-battants, l’autel sur la
place (Russie ancienne),
- L’anthropomorphisme et l’organisme architectural, les croix grecque et latine, une perle dans
la coupe (Renaissance),
- Les cascades et les danses, la galanterie et les perruques (Baroque et Ro-coco),
- L’autocratie et le pouvoir divin, l’absolutisme et l’ordre (Classicisme),
- L’ancien dans le nouveau, le caractère national et les motifs végétaux (Eclectisme et Modern
style),
- Les collisions d’espace et de temps, la statique et la dynamique, les architectones, la
métaphysique de l’espace et le chaos organisé (L’architecture moderne, du constructivisme
au déconstructivisme).

Ces principes et ces notions ont une importance purement méthodique et ils sont donnés sous
forme des hypothèses avec un eclaircissement du mécanisme de leur construction théorique. Ils
supposent une possibilité de la formation d’autres principes, ainsi que celle de leur confirmation
dans des exercices sous forme des modèles heuristiques de composition.

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Méthode sémiotique de l’étude de la composition dans la formation primaire des architectes à l’école supérieure 19

La partie théorique du cours est accompagnée d’une série de 5 à 10 modèles pratiques exécutés
par les étudiants conformement aux devoirs établis. Leur but principal est de fixer chez les étudiants
les connaissances des procédés essentiels de composition en architecture de l’époque définie liés à
la compréhention des aspirations idéologiques et des idées esthétiques de l’époque, de développer
leur savoir-faire de transmettre leur compréhention et leur attitude vers l’architecture de l’époque
et du pays indiqués à l’aide des modèles de la forme architecturale, de former les acquis de l’exécution
des modèles d’espace architectural. Le but final de ces exercices est l’entrainement de la
reconnaissance et de l’application du langage artistique des formes architecturales liées au caractère
de la conscience sociale de differentes époques, une étude et une assimilation pratique des notions
de base et des moyens essentiels de composition architecturale.

Lors de la livraison du devoir d’exercice on donne quelques variantes qui prévoient une possibilité
de la réalisation du potentiel créateur plus ou moins élevé et qui supposent le niveau heuristique
(“créateur”) plus ou moins haut, ainsi que les taches imagées plus ou moins complexes. Par cela on
tient compte des capacités différentes et des possibilités des étudiants, le niveau de leur mentalité
d’image et d’espace, leur niveau des acquis et des savoire-faire.

Par exemple, on propose d’exécuter une des variantes d’exercice:

1. Des éléments simples d’architecture il faut faire une composition sur les thèmes de la Russie
ancienne: “Sofia de Kiev”, “Ascension”, “Basile-le-Bienheureux”, “Palais de terem”, etc. qui
transmettent de façon imagée la place de chaque monument dans le tableau unie du
développement de l’architecture russe.
2. Il faut faire une composition sur le thème “Le prince et ses combattants” reflétant le principe
d’urbanisme et d’espace correspondant.
3. Il faut faire une composition modelant une image de lumiére-couleur-son dans l’architecture de
la ville russe, etc.

Pendant la livraison des devoirs, on montre quelques exemples des exercices exécutés auparavant
et donne les explications nécessaires. On indique aussi les matériaux préférés pour l’exécution des
modèles, leurs dimensions, les moyens et le temps de leur exécution.

Le processus de l’exécution des exercices porte le caractère “didactique-créateur”, car dans le

processus du modelage on crée les conditions qui permettent d’abord dans le processus de “l’activité
didactique” d’assimiler les régularités définies de l’activité d’architecte et ensuite de créer une
solution de projet d’image concrète dans le processus de “l’activité créatrice” en utilisant ces
régularités acquises en tant que moyen de la création. Pour ce caractère du processus du modelage,
une fonction du modelage d’espace se transforme alternativement de la fonction didactique (“le
modelage didactique”) à celle heuristique (“le modelage créateur”) et au contraire, s’il s’agit du
passage au niveau élevé de la connaissance. Dans le cadre du même devoir, un étudiant travaile
ainsi de façon différente, soit comme un apprenti (lors du modelage didactique), soit comme un
architecte (lors du modelage créateur).

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

20 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

En tenant compte des notions démontrées, des connaissances et des acquis dans la solution des
taches imagées et du niveau du potentiel créateur, on peut diviser les modèles heuristiques exécutés
en 3 groupes:

1. Les modèles du niveau de cognition (“didactique”),

2. Les modèles du niveau de cognition créatrice,
3. Les modèles du niveau de création cognitive.

Habituellement lors de l’exécution des modèles au niveau de cognition les étudiants prennent pour
la base un certain monument de l’architecture concrète. Avec cela le haut degré de la convention
du modèle exécuté engendré de ses petites dimensions, aide à exclure le secondaire et le moins
important de la composition. Cela fait se concentrer l’étudiant sur l’essentiel et contribue de telle
façon à la révélation et à l’assimilation de l’essence à la construction architecturale de n’importe
quel objet. Et cela aide, à son tour, l’étudiant à faire “les premiers pas” sur la voie à
“l’affranchissement” et à l’intensification de ses forces créatrices.

Les modèles du niveau de cognition créatrice avec leur haut niveau des connaissances démontrées
des moyens et des procédés de composition architecturale utilisés pour une époque définie se
distinguent des modèles didactiques de leur interprétation profonde et d’un potentiel créateur qui
est un peu plus élevé.

Les modèles du niveau de création cognitive avec leur démonstration des connaissances profondes
des moyens et des procédés de composition utilisés à l’époque concrète se distinguent de la largeur
de leur interprétation créatrice, ainsi que d’un niveau élevé de la mentalité d’espace imagé et
témoignent de bonnes capacités de leurs auteurs.

Selon la qualité de l’information modelée, les modèles exécutés lors du processus des exercices et
des tests appartiennent à ceux “géometriques”, “structuraux” et “sémiotiques”. Le modèle
“géometrique” exprime les propriétés géometriques envers le contenu modelé à l’échelle strictement
définie. Il peut être considéré comme “moule géometrique” du contenu (terme de Korotkovsky
A.E.). C’est une copie de l’objet faite du papier, du carton ou d’autres matériaux, qui n’expriment
que des caractéristiques géométriques de l’objet. Le modèle “structural” exprime les propriétés
structurales, le principe même et le schéma d’organisation du contenu modelé, c’est-à-dire un lien
stable des éléments de la structure d’un objet d’architecture ou des processus de son exploitation
ou de sa construction, autrement dit il est “un squelette du contenu”. Le modèle “sémiotique”, en
gardant les caractéristiques géométriques et structurales, possède une solution originale d’image
créatrice basées tout d’abord sur la connaissance des particularités de symbole et de signe du
contenu de sens de la forme d’architecture artistique. Les corrélations entre les types des modèles
heuristiques et leurs niveaux sont présentées à la figure 3. Les modèles heuristiques sont le résultat
du premier acte créateur des étudiants. On peut juger sur ces modèles le niveau de la connaissance
et du savoir-faire, le degré du développement de la mentalite imagée des étudiants, leurs capacités
de composition (fig.4).

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Méthode sémiotique de l’étude de la composition dans la formation primaire des architectes à l’école supérieure 21

Ces modèles exécutés par les étudiants sont remis pour la vérification et l’appréciation. Les critères
de l’appréciation des travaux exécutés sont les suivants: le niveau des connaissances des moyens
et des procédés de composition définis, le degré de leur correspondance à l’époque étudiée, le
niveau de la solution imagée de la tache établie, ainsi que la qualité de l’exécution du modèle. Les
résultats des exercices sont envisagés devant les étudiants dans le commencement de chaque
conférence pendant 5-10 minutes.

L’expérience de plusieurs années de l’enseignement de ce cours permet de conclure que la fixation

régulière des connaissances théoriques acquises dans une série des exercices pratiques permettant
de vérifier, de réaliser et de développer les possibilités des étudiants et leurs capacités créatrices
intencifie considérablement le processus de l’enseignement. L’importance de ce cours accompagnée
des modèles pratiques dépasse, au resultat final, le cadre du processus didactique, car les notions et
les moyens de la composition architecturale étudiés et utilisés ici (“la réalité objective”) fécondés
de la compréhention même et de l’attitude active des étudiants envers l’architecture de l’époque et
du pays concrets (“la réalité subjective”) aident à l’élaboration des bases de leurs propres langages
de la forme d’architecture artistique développée ensuite dans le processus des projets de cours et
de diplôme. Et cela, à son tour, mène à l’acquisition plus rapide par un étudiant non seulement du
méthode d’activité de l’architecte visant l’assimilation des connaissances des régularités du processus
d’élaboration des projets architecturaux, mais aide à l’acquisition plus rapide de la formation de sa
propre méthode de l’activité visant la maitrise d’architecte sur les étapes primaires de l’enseignement
architectural.

Résumé

L’essentiel de la méthode sémiotique de l’étude de la composition architecturale consiste dans

l’établissemet d’une corrélation entre le contenu imagé de signe sémantique de la composition
architecturale et les principes essentiels et les moyens de l’organisation de la forme architecturale
et de l’espace. Cette méthode vise la révélation des régularités de l’organisation de composition
des formes architecturales dans les aspects sémiotiques sur le fond de culture et d’histoire génétique.
Le contenu imagé d’une forme architecturale est lié ici aux traits essentiels de la conscience
sociale de l’époque concrète et s’exprime dans les constructions théoriques et pratiques des modèles
sémiotiques de la forme architecturale dans le cadre des époques historiques concrètes. Cette
méthode contribue au développement de la mentalité d’image et d’espace, à la compréhension des
régularités du langage artistique de la forme architecturale et à l’entrainement des capacités de
composition.

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

22 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Méthode sémiotique de l’étude de la composition dans la formation primaire des architectes à l’école supérieure 23

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

24 Arquitectura, Semiòtica i Ciències Socials

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.

Méthode sémiotique de l’étude de la composition dans la formation primaire des architectes à l’école supérieure 25

© Los autores, 1998; © Edicions UPC, 1998.